We have located open access text paper links.
Estimation of the transpulmonary pressure from the central venous pressure in mechanically ventilated patients.
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2024 March 22
Transpulmonary pressure (PL ) calculation requires esophageal pressure (PES ) as a surrogate of pleural pressure (Ppl), but its calibration is a cumbersome technique. Central venous pressure (CVP) swings may reflect tidal variations in Ppl and could be used instead of PES , but the interpretation of CVP waveforms could be difficult due to superposition of heartbeat-induced pressure changes. Thus, we developed a digital filter able to remove the cardiac noise to obtain a filtered CVP (f-CVP). The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of CVP and filtered CVP swings (ΔCVP and Δf-CVP, respectively) in estimating esophageal respiratory swings (ΔPES ) and compare PL calculated with CVP, f-CVP and PES; then we tested the diagnostic accuracy of the f-CVP method to identify unsafe high PL levels, defined as PL >10 cmH2 O. Twenty patients with acute respiratory failure (defined as PaO2 /FiO2 ratio below 200 mmHg) treated with invasive mechanical ventilation and monitored with an esophageal balloon and central venous catheter were enrolled prospectively. For each patient a recording session at baseline was performed, repeated if a modification in ventilatory settings occurred. PES , CVP and airway pressure during an end-inspiratory and -expiratory pause were simultaneously recorded; CVP, f-CVP and PES waveforms were analyzed off-line and used to calculate transpulmonary pressure (PL CVP, PL f-CVP, PL PES , respectively). Δf-CVP correlated better than ΔCVP with ΔPES (r = 0.8, p = 0.001 vs. r = 0.08, p = 0.73), with a lower bias in Bland Altman analysis in favor of PL f-CVP (mean bias - 0.16, Limits of Agreement (LoA) -1.31, 0.98 cmH2 O vs. mean bias - 0.79, LoA - 3.14, 1.55 cmH2 O). Both PL f-CVP and PL CVP correlated well with PL PES (r = 0.98, p < 0.001 vs. r = 0.94, p < 0.001), again with a lower bias in Bland Altman analysis in favor of PL f-CVP (0.15, LoA - 0.95, 1.26 cmH2 O vs. 0.80, LoA - 1.51, 3.12, cmH2 O). PL f-CVP discriminated high PL value with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.99 (standard deviation, SD, 0.02) (AUC difference = 0.01 [-0.024; 0.05], p = 0.48). In mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure, the digital filtered CVP estimated ΔPES and PL obtained from digital filtered CVP represented a reliable value of standard PL measured with the esophageal method and could identify patients with non-protective ventilation settings.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease.Rheumatology 2024 April 17
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System: From History to Practice of a Secular Topic.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 5
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app