Technical aspects of bedside respiratory monitoring of transpulmonary pressure.

Transpulmonary pressure, that is the difference between airway pressure (Paw) and pleural pressure, is considered one of the most important parameters to know in order to set a safe mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients but also in critically ill obese patients, in abdominal pathologies or in pathologies affecting the chest wall itself. Transpulmonary pressure should rely on the assessment of intrathoracic pleural pressure. Esophageal pressure (Pes) is considered the best surrogate of pleural pressure in critically ill patients, but concerns about its reliability exist. The aim of this article is to describe the technique of Pes measurement in mechanically ventilated patients: the catheter insertion, the proper balloon placement and filling, the validation test and specific procedures to remove the main artifacts will be discussed.

In vivo calibration of esophageal pressure in the mechanically ventilated patient makes measurements reliable.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal pressure (Pes) can provide information to guide mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory failure. However, both relative changes and absolute values of Pes can be affected by inappropriate filling of the esophageal balloon and by the elastance of the esophagus wall. We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a calibration procedure consisting in optimization of balloon filling and subtraction of the pressure generated by the esophagus wall (Pew). METHODS: An esophageal balloon was progressively filled in 36 patients under controlled mechanical ventilation. VBEST was the filling volume associated with the largest tidal increase of Pes. Esophageal wall elastance was quantified and Pew was computed at each filling volume. Different filling strategies were compared by performing a validation occlusion test. RESULTS: Fifty series of measurements were performed. VBEST was 3.5 ± 1.9 ml (range 0.5-6.0). Esophagus elastance was 1.1 ± 0.5 cmH2O/ml (0.3-3.1). Both Pew and the result of the occlusion test differed among filling strategies. At filling volumes of 0.5, VBEST and 4.0 ml respectively, Pew was 0.0 ± 0.1, 2.0 ± 1.9, and 3.0 ± 1.7 cmH2O (p < 0.0001), whereas the occlusion test was satisfactory in 22%, 98%, and 88% of cases (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Under mechanical ventilation, an increase of balloon filling above the conventionally recommended low volumes warrants complete transmission of Pes swings, but is associated with significant elevation of baseline. A simple calibration procedure allows finding the filling volume associated with the best transmission of tidal Pes change and subtracting the associated baseline artifact, thus making measurement of absolute values of Pes reliable.