Respiratory care · 2024
Evaluation of Optimal Esophageal Catheter Balloon Inflation Volume in Mechanically Ventilated Children.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rudolph Michelle W, Koopman Alette A, Blokpoel Robert G T, Kneyber Martin C J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Accuracy of esophageal pressure measured by an air-filled esophageal balloon catheter is dependent on balloon filling volume. However, this has been understudied in mechanically ventilated children. We sought to study the optimal filling volume in children receiving ventilation by using previously reported calibration methods. Secondary objectives included to examine the difference in pressure measurements at individualized optimal filling volume versus a standardized inflation volume and to study if a static hold during calibration is required to identify the optimal filling volume.
METHODS: An incremental inflation calibration procedure was performed in children receiving ventilation, <18 y, instrumented with commercially available catheters (6 or 8 French) who were not breathing spontaneously. The balloon was manually inflated by 0.2 to 1.6 mL (6 French) or 2.6 mL (8 French). Esophageal pressure (Pes) and airway pressure tracings were recorded during the procedure. Data were analyzed offline by using 2 methods: visual determination of filling range with the calculation of the highest difference between expiratory and inspiratory Pes and determination of a correctly filled balloon by calculating the esophageal elastance.
RESULTS: We enrolled 40 subjects with median (interquartile range [IQR]) age 6.8 (2-25) months. The optimal filling volume ranged from 0.2 to 1.2 mL (median [IQR] 0.6 [0.2-1.0] mL) in the subjects with a 6 French catheter and 0.2-2.0 mL (median [IQR] 0.7 [0.5-1.2] mL) for 8 French catheters. Inflating the balloon with 0.6 mL (median computed from the whole cohort) gave an absolute difference in transpulmonary pressure that ranged from -4 to 7 cm H2O compared with the personalized volume. Pes calculated over 5 consecutives breaths differed with a maximum of 1 cm H2O compared to Pes calculated during a single inspiratory hold. The esophageal elastance was correlated with weight, age, and sex.
CONCLUSIONS: The optimal balloon inflation volume was highly variable, which indicated the need for an individual calibration procedure. Pes was not overestimated when an inspiratory hold was not applied.
METHODS: An incremental inflation calibration procedure was performed in children receiving ventilation, <18 y, instrumented with commercially available catheters (6 or 8 French) who were not breathing spontaneously. The balloon was manually inflated by 0.2 to 1.6 mL (6 French) or 2.6 mL (8 French). Esophageal pressure (Pes) and airway pressure tracings were recorded during the procedure. Data were analyzed offline by using 2 methods: visual determination of filling range with the calculation of the highest difference between expiratory and inspiratory Pes and determination of a correctly filled balloon by calculating the esophageal elastance.
RESULTS: We enrolled 40 subjects with median (interquartile range [IQR]) age 6.8 (2-25) months. The optimal filling volume ranged from 0.2 to 1.2 mL (median [IQR] 0.6 [0.2-1.0] mL) in the subjects with a 6 French catheter and 0.2-2.0 mL (median [IQR] 0.7 [0.5-1.2] mL) for 8 French catheters. Inflating the balloon with 0.6 mL (median computed from the whole cohort) gave an absolute difference in transpulmonary pressure that ranged from -4 to 7 cm H2O compared with the personalized volume. Pes calculated over 5 consecutives breaths differed with a maximum of 1 cm H2O compared to Pes calculated during a single inspiratory hold. The esophageal elastance was correlated with weight, age, and sex.
CONCLUSIONS: The optimal balloon inflation volume was highly variable, which indicated the need for an individual calibration procedure. Pes was not overestimated when an inspiratory hold was not applied.