Skip to main content

Table 1 Esophageal pressure measurements in patients under positive-pressure ventilation with five different esophageal balloon filling strategies

From: In vivo calibration of esophageal pressure in the mechanically ventilated patient makes measurements reliable

 

Volume (ml)

PesEE (cmH2O)

PesEI (cmH2O)

∆Pes (cmH2O)

∆Pes/∆Paw

Pew (cmH2O)

V0.5

0.5 ± 0.0*

7.3 ± 3.6*

10.6 ± 3.8*

3.3 ± 1.9£

0.59 ± 0.23£

0.0 ± 0.1^

VMIN

1.5 ± 0.6*

10.4 ± 5.2*

14.8 ± 5.7*

4.4 ± 2.0$

0.81 ± 0.19$

0.0 ± 0.0^

VBEST

3.5 ± 1.9#

12.5 ± 5.2#

17.8 ± 5.6#

5.3 ± 2.3*

0.96 ± 0.06*

2.0 ± 1.9#

V4.0

4.0 ± 0.0#

13.4 ± 4.4#

18.4 ± 4.7#

4.9 ± 2.1§

0.89 ± 0.10§

3.0 ± 1.7#

V8.0

8.0 ± 0.0*

23.8 ± 6.5*

28.2 ± 6.1*

4.4 ± 2.4$

0.79 ± 0.21$

7.5 ± 3.6*

  1. Pes EE , Pes EI and Pes end-expiratory, end-inspiratory, and tidal swing of Pes respectively, ∆Pes/∆Paw esophageal to airway pressure change ratio during an occlusion test (airway opening occlusion and chest compressions), Pew pressure generated by the esophageal wall as a reaction to balloon volume increase, V 0.5 , V 4.0 and V 8.0 injected volumes of 0.5, 4, and 8 ml respectively, V MIN lower limit of the linear section of the end-expiratory PV curve, V BEST injected volume associated with the largest Pes swing (see Methods and Fig. 1 for details)
  2. * p < 0.0001 vs. all the other injected volumes; # p < 0.0001 vs. V0.5, VMIN, and V8.0; ^ p < 0.0001 vs. V4.0, V8.0, and VBEST; § p < 0.0001 vs. V0.5 and VBEST, p < 0.05 vs. V8.0 and VMIN; $ p < 0.0001 vs. V0.5 and VBEST, p < 0.05 vs. V4.0; £ p < 0.0001 vs. VMIN, VBEST, and V4.0, p < 0.05 vs. V8.0