Estimation of the transpulmonary pressure from the central venous pressure in mechanically ventilated patients
Federico Franchi,Emanuele Detti,Alberto Fogagnolo,Savino Spadaro,Gabriele Cevenini,Gennaro Cataldo,Tommaso Addabbo,Cesare Biuzzi,Daniele Marianello,Carlo Alberto Volta,Fabio Silvio Taccone,Sabino Scolletta
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-024-01150-5
IF: 1.977
2024-03-22
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
Abstract:Transpulmonary pressure (P L ) calculation requires esophageal pressure (P ES ) 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 P ES , 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 (ΔP ES ) and compare P L calculated with CVP, f-CVP and P ES; then we tested the diagnostic accuracy of the f-CVP method to identify unsafe high P L levels, defined as P L >10 cmH 2 O. Twenty patients with acute respiratory failure (defined as PaO 2 /FiO 2 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. P ES , CVP and airway pressure during an end-inspiratory and -expiratory pause were simultaneously recorded; CVP, f-CVP and P ES waveforms were analyzed off-line and used to calculate transpulmonary pressure (P L CVP, P L f-CVP, P L P ES , respectively). Δf-CVP correlated better than ΔCVP with ΔP ES ( r = 0.8, p = 0.001 vs. r = 0.08, p = 0.73), with a lower bias in Bland Altman analysis in favor of P L f-CVP (mean bias − 0.16, Limits of Agreement (LoA) -1.31, 0.98 cmH 2 O vs. mean bias − 0.79, LoA − 3.14, 1.55 cmH 2 O). Both P L f-CVP and P L CVP correlated well with P L P ES ( 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 P L f-CVP (0.15, LoA − 0.95, 1.26 cmH 2 O vs. 0.80, LoA − 1.51, 3.12, cmH 2 O). P L f-CVP discriminated high P L 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 ΔP ES and P L obtained from digital filtered CVP represented a reliable value of standard P L measured with the esophageal method and could identify patients with non-protective ventilation settings.
anesthesiology