Key result
In actively expiring patients, correcting PEEP(i),dyn by subtracting Pga,total decay showed strong agreement with the reference method (mean difference 0.37 cm H2O; limits of agreement -0.09 to 0.83).
Why the study?
What is the most accurate method to correct dynamic intrinsic PEEP for expiratory muscle contraction in spontaneously breathing ventilator-dependent patients?
Observational (n=15)
What is the most accurate method to correct dynamic intrinsic PEEP for expiratory muscle contraction in spontaneously breathing ventilator-dependent patients?
Mean Difference: 0.37 (95% CI -0.09–0.83)
In actively expiring ventilator-dependent patients, subtracting total gastric pressure decay during inspiration from dynamic intrinsic PEEP provides an accurate correction for expiratory muscle contraction.
May reduce PEEP(i),dyn overestimation in spontaneously breathing patients; leaves open standardization and validation of gastric pressure corrections.
In spontaneously breathing (SB) patients expiratory muscle contraction leads to an overestimation of dynamic intrinsic PEEP (PEEP(i),dyn). To quantify this overestimation, PEEP(i),dyn measured with the esophageal balloon technique was corrected for the increase in Pga over the course of expiration (Pga,exp rise), for the whole decay of Pga during inspiration (Pga,total decay) or for the part of Pga decay restricted between the onset of inspiratory effort and the point of zero flow (Pga,zf decay). Corrections were compared with the reference PEEP(i),dyn (PEEP(i),dyn ref ), calculated by using the Campbell diagram. In 15 ventilator-dependent, SB, and actively expiring patients, we found that the difference PEEP(i),dyn - Pga, total decay (mean +/- SD, 5.7 +/- 1.9 cm H(2)O) was quite similar to PEEP(i),dyn ref (5.3 +/- 1.9 cm H(2)O). Their mean difference was 0. 37 cm H(2)O with limits of agreement -0.09 to 0.83 cm H(2)O, indicating strong agreement between these methods. PEEP(i),dyn - Pga, exp rise (6.0 +/- 2.1 cm H(2)O) was also similar to PEEP(i),dyn ref. Their mean difference was 0.72 cm H(2)O with limits of agreement -1. 69 to 3.13 cm H(2)O, indicating good agreement. In contrast, mean difference of PEEP(i),dyn - Pga,zf decay and PEEP(i),dyn ref was 3. 14 cm H(2)O with limits of agreement -0.46 to 6.74 cm H(2)O, indicating lack of agreement. The error in measurement due to the subtraction of Pga,zf decay from PEEP(i),dyn (i.e., [PEEP(i),dyn - Pga,zf decay] - PEEP(i),dyn ref ) was proportional to the intensity of expiratory muscle contraction, as expressed by the Pga,exp rise (r = 0.903, p < 0.001). We conclude that in actively expiring patients an adequate correction of PEEP(i),dyn for the overestimation caused by expiratory muscle contraction can be made by subtracting either Pga,total decay or Pga,exp rise from PEEP(i), dyn, the former achieving the best performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zakynthinos et al. (2000) conducted an observational in Ventilator-dependent, spontaneously breathing, and actively expiring patients (n=15). Correction of PEEP(i),dyn using Pga,total decay vs. Reference PEEP(i),dyn (Campbell diagram) was evaluated on Agreement between corrected PEEP(i),dyn and reference PEEP(i),dyn (Mean difference 0.37 cm H2O, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.83). In actively expiring patients, correcting PEEP(i),dyn by subtracting Pga,total decay showed strong agreement with the reference method (mean difference 0.37 cm H2O; limits of agreement -0.09 to 0.83).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: