Determining the optimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to maximize alveolar recruitment while minimizing overdistension remains a clinical challenge. This study investigated the relationship between transpulmonary pressures and electrical impedance tomography (EIT)-derived estimates of alveolar collapse and overdistension, and compared the PEEP levels and physiological conditions produced by two titration strategies, in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We conducted a physiological study involving 38 mechanically ventilated ARDS patients. Each patient underwent a decremental PEEP trial (20 to 4 cmH₂O), with continuous EIT monitoring and esophageal pressure measurements to calculate end-expiratory (P L, e ) and end-inspiratory (P L, i ) transpulmonary pressures. Percentages of alveolar collapse and overdistension were derived from EIT data. Their associations with transpulmonary pressures were assessed using repeated-measures correlation and linear mixed-effects models. The discriminative performance of P L, e and P L, i for EIT-derived collapse or overdistension exceeding 10% of the lung was assessed. We also compared PEEP levels determined by EIT-guided (best compromise between overdistension and collapse) versus esophageal pressure-guided (lowest PEEP yielding a positive P L, e ) strategies. P L, e was inversely associated with EIT-derived collapse and P L, i positively associated with EIT-derived overdistension (rrm = − 0.85 and 0.89; all p < 0.001). In mixed-effects models, each 1 cmH₂O decrease in P L, e corresponded to a 3.0% increase in collapse, and each 1 cmH₂O increase in P L, i to a 1.9% increase in overdistension. P L, e and P L, i discriminated collapse and overdistension exceeding 10% with AUCs of 0.84 and 0.80. Within the applied PEEP range, a P L, e <0.2 cmH₂O was associated with collapse > 10%, while P L, i >23.3 cmH₂O was associated with overdistension > 10%, both with ≥ 90% specificity. PEEP levels determined using EIT were significantly higher than those based on esophageal pressure (12.0 [8.0–14.0] vs. 8.0 [4.8–11.3] cmH 2 O; p < 0.001), resulting in reduced alveolar collapse, indicating more effective alveolar recruitment, and improved ventilation in the dependent lung region. However, the EIT-guided strategy also led to a slight increase in overdistension and reduced compliance in the non-dependent lung. Transpulmonary pressure measurements are strongly associated with EIT-derived estimates of alveolar collapse and overdistension in ARDS patients. However, EIT- and esophageal pressure-guided strategies result in different PEEP settings, respiratory mechanics, and patterns of alveolar collapse and overdistension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brault et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: