Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Narrative review summarizes the use of electrical impedance tomography in pediatric populations, highlighting its implications for respiratory monitoring.
A narrative review was carried out to summarize the current evidence regarding the use of electrical impedance tomography (EIT) in pediatric and neonatal populations. Medline and Web of Science were searched using the following keywords (“electrical impedance tomography” OR “electric impedance tomography” OR (“electric impedance” AND “tomography/methods”)) AND (“pediatrics” OR “child” OR “infant”) from inception to January 2025. English-language studies involving the use of EIT in neonatal and pediatric populations (< 18 years) were included. Conference abstracts, editorials, book chapters, reviews, adult studies, and animal studies were excluded. Among the 116 studies included (n = 68 in neonatal intensive care unit, n = 21 in pediatric intensive care unit, n = 10 in anesthesia, and n = 17 in pediatric follow-up), the majority were observational (n = 71, 61.2%) while 13 (11.2%) were randomized controlled trials. Data analysis identified different topics related to EIT use in the pediatric and neonatal settings: feasibility, description of respiratory physiology, diagnosis and follow-up of pulmonary diseases, pediatric anesthesia, therapeutics evaluation, non-ventilatory and ventilatory interventions. The present review of current evidence highlights that EIT is an innovative, non-invasive bedside tool increasingly used in pediatric and neonatal populations that offers valuable insights into respiratory physiology from birth to adolescence. Beyond its use as a monitoring tool, it holds promise for imaging, ventilatory adjustment, and chronic disease follow-up. The challenge for future research lies in identifying key variables and standardizing their interpretation to integrate EIT into a personalized medicine approach at the bedside in pediatric and neonatal intensive care units.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boussena et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: