Esophageal balloon calibration during Sigh: A physiologic, randomized, cross-over study.

PURPOSE: Optimal esophageal balloon filling volume (Vbest) depends on the intrathoracic pressure. During Sigh breath delivered by the ventilator machine, esophageal balloon is surrounded by elevated intrathoracic pressure that might require higher filling volume for accurate measure of tidal changes in esophageal pressure (Pes). The primary aim of our investigation was to evaluate and compare Vbest during volume controlled and pressure support breaths vs. Sigh breath. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty adult patients requiring invasive volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure were enrolled. After the insertion of a naso-gastric catheter equipped with 10 ml esophageal balloon, each patient underwent three 30-min trials as follows: VCV, pressure support ventilation (PSV), and PSV + Sigh. Sigh was added to PSV as 35 cmH2O pressure-controlled breath over 4 s, once per minute. PSV and PSV + Sigh were randomly applied and, at the end of each step, esophageal balloon calibration was performed. RESULTS: Vbest was higher for Sigh breath (4.5 [3.0-6.8] ml) compared to VCV (1.5 [1.0-2.9] ml, P = 0.0004) and PSV tidal breath (1.0 [0.5-2.4] ml, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: During Sigh breath, applying a calibrated approach for Pes assessment, a higher Vbest was required compared to VCV and PSV tidal breath.

Esophageal Pressure Versus Gas Exchange to Set PEEP During Intraoperative Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position affect respiratory system mechanics and oxygenation during elective pelvic robotic surgery. The primary aim of this randomized pilot study was to compare the effects of a conventional low tidal volume ventilation with PEEP guided by gas exchange (VGas-guided) versus low tidal volume ventilation tailoring PEEP according to esophageal pressure (VPes-guided) on oxygenation and respiratory mechanics during elective pelvic robotic surgery. METHODS: This study was conducted in a single-center tertiary hospital between September 2017 and January 2019. Forty-nine adult patients scheduled for elective pelvic robotic surgery were screened; 28 subjects completed the full analysis. Exclusion criteria were American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥ 3, contraindications to nasogastric catheter placement, and pregnancy. After dedicated naso/orogastric catheter insertion, subjects were randomly assigned to VGas-guided ([Formula: see text] and PEEP set to achieve [Formula: see text] > 94%) or VPes-guided (PEEP tailored to equalize end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure). Oxygenation ([Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text]) was evaluated (1) at randomization, after pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg application; (2) at 60 min; (3) at 120 min following randomization; and (4) at end of surgery. Respiratory mechanics were assessed during the duration of the study. RESULTS: Compared to VGas-guided, oxygenation was higher with VPes-guided at 60 min (388 ± 90 vs 308 ± 95 mm Hg, P = .02), at 120 min after randomization (400 ± 90 vs 308 ± 81 mm Hg, P = .008), and at the end of surgery (402 ± 95 vs 312 ± 95 mm Hg, P = .009). Respiratory system elastance was lower with VPes-guided compared to VGas-guided at 20 min (24.2 ± 7.3 vs 33.4 ± 10.7 cm H2O/L, P = .001) and 60 min (24.1 ± 5.4 vs 31.9 ± 8.5 cm H2O/L, P = .006) from randomization. CONCLUSIONS: Oxygenation and respiratory system mechanics were improved when applying a ventilatory strategy tailoring PEEP to equalize expiratory transpulmonary pressure in subjects undergoing pelvic robotic surgery compared to a VGas-guided approach. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT03153592).

Oesophageal balloon calibration during pressure support ventilation: a proof of concept study.

Oesophageal balloon calibration improves the oesophageal pressure (Pes) assessment during invasive controlled mechanical ventilation. The primary aim of the present investigation was to ascertain the feasibility of oesophageal balloon calibration during pressure support ventilation (PSV). Secondarily, the calibrated Pes (Pescal) was compared to uncalibrated one acquired at 4 ml-filling volume (PesV4), as per manufacturer recommendation. After a naso-gastric tube equipped with oesophageal balloon was correctly positioned in 21 adult patients undergoing invasive volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the balloon was progressively inflated, applying a series of end-inspiratory and end-expiratory holds at each filling volume during VCV and PSV. Upon optimal balloon filling volume (Vbest) was identified, Pescal was computed by correcting the Pes measured at Vbest for the oesophageal wall pressure elicited at same filling volume. Finally, end-expiratory and end-inspiratory PesV4 were recorded too. A total of 42 calibrations, 21 per ventilatory mode, were performed. Vbest was 1.9 ± 1.6 ml in VCV and 1.7 ± 1.6 ml in PSV (p = 0.5217). PesV4 was overestimated compared to Pescal at end-expiration and end-inspiration (p <0.0001 for all comparisons) in both VCV (13.4 ± 3.4 cmH2O and 15.4 ± 3 cmH2O vs. 8.5 ± 2.9 cmH2O and 11.4 ± 3 cmH2O) and PSV (14.7 ± 4.2 cmH2O and 17 ± 3.9 cmH2O vs. 8.9 ± 3.4 cmH2O and 12.4 ± 3.9 cmH2O). In PSV, oesophageal balloon calibration is feasible and allows to obtain a reliable Pes assessment compared to uncalibrated approach.