Search

Purpose of Review: To summarize the key concepts, physiological rationale and clinical evidence for titrating positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) using transpulmonary pressure ( PL ) derived from esophageal manometry, and describe considerations to facilitate bedside implementation., Recent Findings: The goal of an esophageal pressure-based PEEP setting is to have sufficient PL at end-expiration to keep (part of) the lung open at the end of expiration. Although randomized studies (EPVent-1 and EPVent-2) have not yet proven a clinical benefit of this approach, a recent posthoc analysis of EPVent-2 revealed a potential benefit in patients with lower APACHE II score and when PEEP setting resulted in end-expiratory PL values close to 0 ± 2 cmH 2 O instead of higher or more negative values. Technological advances have made esophageal pressure monitoring easier to implement at the bedside, but challenges regarding obtaining reliable measurements should be acknowledged., Summary: Esophageal pressure monitoring has the potential to individualize the PEEP settings. Future studies are needed to evaluate the clinical benefit of such approach., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

There is a well-recognised importance for personalising mechanical ventilation settings to protect the lungs and the diaphragm for each individual patient. Measurement of oesophageal pressure ( P ) as an estimate of pleural pressure allows assessment of partitioned respiratory mechanics and quantification of lung stress, which helps our understanding of the patient's respiratory physiology and could guide individualisation of ventilator settings. Oesophageal manometry also allows breathing effort quantification, which could contribute to improving settings during assisted ventilation and mechanical ventilation weaning. In parallel with technological improvements, oes ) as an estimate of pleural pressure allows assessment of partitioned respiratory mechanics and quantification of lung stress, which helps our understanding of the patient's respiratory physiology and could guide individualisation of ventilator settings. Oesophageal manometry also allows breathing effort quantification, which could contribute to improving settings during assisted ventilation and mechanical ventilation weaning. In parallel with technological improvements, P oes monitoring is now available for daily clinical practice. This review provides a fundamental understanding of the relevant physiological concepts that can be assessed using P oes measurements, both during spontaneous breathing and mechanical ventilation. We also present a practical approach for implementing oesophageal manometry at the bedside. While more clinical data are awaited to confirm the benefits of P oes -guided mechanical ventilation and to determine optimal targets under different conditions, we discuss potential practical approaches, including positive end-expiratory pressure setting in controlled ventilation and assessment of inspiratory effort during assisted modes., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: No financial support for this work was received. I. Telias reports a salary support grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research in the form of a Post-Doctoral Fellowship Award and personal fees from Medtronic, Getinge and MbMED SA. E. Akoumianaki reports honoraria received from Medtronic for educational seminars and lectures. L. Piquilloud reports speakers fees received from Getinge, Air Liquide, Hamilton Medical, Fisher & Paykel and Medtronic; research support received from Draeger; and consultant fees received from Löwenstein and Lungpacer. A.H. Jonkman and E. Spinelli declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound signs for both the diagnosis of interstitial syndrome and for the discrimination of noncardiogenic interstitial syndrome (NCIS) from cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) in a mixed ICU population., Design: A prospective diagnostic accuracy study with derivation and validation cohorts., Setting: Three academic mixed ICUs in the Netherlands., Patients: Consecutive adult ICU patients that received a lung ultrasound examination., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Result: The reference standard was the diagnosis of interstitial syndrome (NCIS or CPE) or noninterstitial syndromes (other pulmonary diagnoses and no pulmonary diagnoses) based on full post-hoc clinical chart review except lung ultrasound. The index test was a lung ultrasound examination performed and scored by a researcher blinded to clinical information. A total of 101 patients were included in the derivation and 122 in validation cohort. In the derivation cohort, patients with interstitial syndrome ( n = 56) were reliably discriminated from other patients based on the presence of a B-pattern (defined as greater than or equal to 3 B-lines in one frame) with an accuracy of 94.7% (sensitivity, 90.9%; specificity, 91.1%). For discrimination of NCIS ( n = 29) from CPE ( n = 27), the presence of bilateral pleural line abnormalities (at least two: fragmented, thickened or irregular) had the highest diagnostic accuracy (94.6%; sensitivity, 89.3%; specificity, 100%). A diagnostic algorithm (Bedside Lung Ultrasound for Interstitial Syndrome Hierarchy protocol) using B-pattern and bilateral pleural abnormalities had an accuracy of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.77-0.95) for diagnosis and discrimination of interstitial syndromes. In the validation cohort, which included 122 patients with interstitial syndrome, bilateral pleural line abnormalities discriminated NCIS ( n = 98) from CPE ( n = 24) with a sensitivity of 31% (95% CI, 21-40%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 86-100%)., Conclusions: Lung ultrasound can diagnose and discriminate interstitial syndromes in ICU patients with moderate-to-good accuracy. Pleural line abnormalities are highly specific for NCIS, but sensitivity is limited., Competing Interests: Dr. Tuinman received support for article research from departmental funds. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Objectives: Lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation is a novel concept that aims to limit the detrimental effects of mechanical ventilation on the diaphragm while remaining within limits of lung-protective ventilation. The premise is that low breathing effort under mechanical ventilation causes diaphragm atrophy, whereas excessive breathing effort induces diaphragm and lung injury. In a proof-of-concept study, we aimed to assess whether titration of inspiratory support based on diaphragm effort increases the time that patients have effort in a predefined "diaphragm-protective" range, without compromising lung-protective ventilation., Design: Randomized clinical trial., Setting: Mixed medical-surgical ICU in a tertiary academic hospital in the Netherlands., Patients: Patients (n = 40) with respiratory failure ventilated in a partially-supported mode., Interventions: In the intervention group, inspiratory support was titrated hourly to obtain transdiaphragmatic pressure swings in the predefined "diaphragm-protective" range (3-12 cm H2O). The control group received standard-of-care., Measurements and Main Results: Transdiaphragmatic pressure, transpulmonary pressure, and tidal volume were monitored continuously for 24 hours in both groups. In the intervention group, more breaths were within "diaphragm-protective" range compared with the control group (median 81%; interquartile range [64-86%] vs 35% [16-60%], respectively; p < 0.001). Dynamic transpulmonary pressures (20.5 ± 7.1 vs 18.5 ± 7.0 cm H2O; p = 0.321) and tidal volumes (7.56 ± 1.47 vs 7.54 ± 1.22 mL/kg; p = 0.961) were not different in the intervention and control group, respectively., Conclusions: Titration of inspiratory support based on patient breathing effort greatly increased the time that patients had diaphragm effort in the predefined "diaphragm-protective" range without compromising tidal volumes and transpulmonary pressures. This study provides a strong rationale for further studies powered on patient-centered outcomes., Competing Interests: Drs. de Vries’ and Heunks’ institutions received funding from Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences. Dr. de Vries has received speaker fees from the Dutch Ultrasound Center (the Netherlands) and travel and speaker fees from the Chinese Organization of Rehabilitation Medicine (China). Dr. Jonkman has received personal fees from Liberate Medical (United States). Dr. Heunks received research support from Liberate Medical (United States), Fisher and Paykel, and Orion Pharma (Finland), and speakers fee from Getinge (Sweden). Dr. de Man disclosed the off-label product use of oxidation-reduction potential measurement with the RedoxSYS System from Aytu Biosciences. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 emerged as a serious human pathogen in late 2019, causing the disease coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The most common clinical presentation of severe COVID-19 is acute respiratory failure consistent with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Airway, lung parenchymal, pulmonary vascular, and respiratory neuromuscular disorders all feature in COVID-19. This article reviews what is known about the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection on different parts of the respiratory system, clues to understanding the underlying biology of respiratory disease, and highlights current and future translation and clinical research questions.

BACKGROUND: A weaning trial can be considered a stress test of the cardiorespiratory system; it increases oxygen demand and thus warrants a higher cardiac index and elevated breathing effort. We hypothesized that the combination of easily performed ultrasound measurements of heart, lungs, and diaphragm would yield good diagnostic accuracy to predict extubation failure. METHODS: Adult subjects ventilated for > 72 h with a successful spontaneous breathing trial were included. Ultrasound measurements of heart (left ventricular function), lungs (number of B-lines), and diaphragm thickening fraction were performed during a spontaneous breathing trial. The primary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of a holistic ultrasound approach for extubation failure. Re-intubation within 48 h was considered extubation failure. RESULTS: Eighty-three subjects were included, of whom 15 (18%) were re-intubated within 48 h. The sensitivity and specificity of a holistic approach were 100% (78.2-100%) and 7.7% (2.5-17.1%), respectively, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.54. The sensitivity and specificity of diaphragm thickening fraction, using a cutoff value of < 30% for extubation failure were 86.7% (59.5-98.3%) and 25.4% (15.5-37.5%), respectively, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.61. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects ventilated for > 72 h who had a successful spontaneous breathing trial, holistic ultrasound was a weak predictor for extubation failure. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04196361). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of extended lung ultrasonographic assessment, including evaluation of dynamic air bronchograms and color Doppler imaging to differentiate pneumonia and atelectasis in patients with consolidation on chest radiograph. Compare this approach to the Simplified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score, Lung Ultrasound Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score, and the Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency protocol. DESIGN: Prospective diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING: Adult ICU applying selective digestive decontamination. PATIENTS: Adult patients that underwent a chest radiograph for any indication at any time during admission. Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, coronavirus disease 2019, severe thoracic trauma, and infectious isolation measures were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Lung ultrasound was performed within 24 hours of chest radiograph. Consolidated tissue was assessed for presence of dynamic air bronchograms and with color Doppler imaging for presence of flow. Clinical data were recorded after ultrasonographic assessment. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of dynamic air bronchogram and color Doppler imaging alone and within a decision tree to differentiate pneumonia from atelectasis. Of 120 patients included, 51 (42.5%) were diagnosed with pneumonia. The dynamic air bronchogram had a 45% (95% CI, 31–60%) sensitivity and 99% (95% CI, 92–100%) specificity. Color Doppler imaging had a 90% (95% CI, 79–97%) sensitivity and 68% (95% CI, 56–79%) specificity. The combined decision tree had an 86% (95% CI, 74–94%) sensitivity and an 86% (95% CI, 75–93%) specificity. The Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency protocol had a 100% (95% CI, 93–100%) sensitivity and 0% (95% CI, 0–5%) specificity, while the Simplified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score and Lung Ultrasound Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score had a 41% (95% CI, 28–56%) sensitivity, 84% (95% CI, 73–92%) specificity and 68% (95% CI, 54–81%) sensitivity, 81% (95% CI, 70–90%) specificity, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with pulmonary consolidation on chest radiograph, an extended lung ultrasound protocol is an accurate and directly bedside available tool to differentiate pneumonia from atelectasis. It outperforms standard lung ultrasound and clinical scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]