Search

Abstract Background Transpulmonary pressure is the effective pressure across the lung parenchyma and has been proposed as a guide for mechanical ventilation. The pleural pressure is challenging to directly measure in clinical setting and esophageal manometry using esophageal balloon catheters was suggested for estimation. However, the accuracy of using esophageal pressure to estimate pleural pressure is debated due to variability in the mechanical properties of respiratory system, esophagus and esophageal catheter. Furthermore, while a vertical pleural pressure gradient exists across lung regions, esophageal pressure balloon provides a single value, representing, at most, the pressure surrounding the esophagus. Methods In a swine model with a preserved esophagus and a single homogenous, easily measurable intrathoracic pressure, we evaluated esophageal pressure’s agreement with intrathoracic pressure at different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels (0, 5, 10, 15 cmH2O). We assessed the improvement of measurement accuracy by correcting absolute esophageal values using a previously described technique, that accounts for the pressure generated by the esophageal wall in response to esophageal balloon inflation. The study involved five swine, wherein two different esophageal catheters were used alongside the four distinct PEEP levels. Swings, uncorrected and corrected absolute esophageal pressures (end-inspiratory, end-expiratory) were compared with their respective intrathoracic pressures. The effect of correction technique was assessed with manual incremental step inflation procedure. Results We found that both catheters significantly overestimated absolute esophageal pressure compared to intrathoracic pressure (5.01 ± 3.32 and 6.06 ± 5.62 cmH2O at end-expiration and end-inspiration, respectively), with error increasing at higher positive end-expiratory pressure levels (end-expiration: 2.36 ± 2.03, 3.77 ± 1.37, 6.24 ± 2.51 and 7.69 ± 4.02 for each PEEP level, P

Highlights Few data exist about feasibility and safety of HFNC outside the ICU. This study retrospectively evaluates safety, feasibility and efficacy of HFNC used in general wards under intensivist-supervision and specific training courses. 150 patients with mild-moderate ARF admitted to general wards were included. HFNC demonstrated to be feasible and potentially safe (no deaths or major adverse events in the wards were reported). HFNC was effective in improving comfort, dyspnea and RR without effects on gas exchange. Failure was recorded in 20 patients (19.2%): 14 escalations to CPAP/NIV and 3 transfers to ICU.