The oesophageal balloon for respiratory monitoring in ventilated patients: updated clinical review and practical aspects.

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 <sub>oes</sub> ) 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 <sub>oes</sub> 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 <sub>oes</sub> 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 <sub>oes</sub> -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

Airway Occlusion Pressure As an Estimate of Respiratory Drive and Inspiratory Effort during Assisted Ventilation.

Rationale: Monitoring and controlling respiratory drive and effort may help to minimize lung and diaphragm injury. Airway occlusion pressure (P0.1) is a noninvasive measure of respiratory drive.Objectives: To determine 1) the validity of "ventilator" P0.1 (P0.1vent) displayed on the screen as a measure of drive, 2) the ability of P0.1 to detect potentially injurious levels of effort, and 3) how P0.1vent displayed by different ventilators compares to a "reference" P0.1 (P0.1ref) measured from airway pressure recording during an occlusion.Methods: Analysis of three studies in patients, one in healthy subjects, under assisted ventilation, and a bench study with six ventilators. P0.1vent was validated against measures of drive (electrical activity of the diaphragm and muscular pressure over time) and P0.1ref. Performance of P0.1ref and P0.1vent to detect predefined potentially injurious effort was tested using derivation and validation datasets using esophageal pressure-time product as the reference standard.Measurements and Main Results: P0.1vent correlated well with measures of drive and with the esophageal pressure-time product (within-subjects R <sup>2</sup> = 0.8). P0.1ref >3.5 cm H <sub>2</sub> O was 80% sensitive and 77% specific for detecting high effort (≥200 cm H <sub>2</sub> O ⋅ s ⋅ min <sup>-1</sup> ); P0.1ref ≤1.0 cm H <sub>2</sub> O was 100% sensitive and 92% specific for low effort (≤50 cm H <sub>2</sub> O ⋅ s ⋅ min <sup>-1</sup> ). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for P0.1vent to detect potentially high and low effort were 0.81 and 0.92, respectively. Bench experiments showed a low mean bias for P0.1vent compared with P0.1ref for most ventilators but precision varied; in patients, precision was lower. Ventilators estimating P0.1vent without occlusions could underestimate P0.1ref.Conclusions: P0.1 is a reliable bedside tool to assess respiratory drive and detect potentially injurious inspiratory effort

Reliability of plateau pressure during patient-triggered assisted ventilation. Analysis of a multicentre database

Purpose: An inspiratory hold during patient-triggered assisted ventilation potentially allows to measure driving pressure and inspiratory effort. However, muscular activity can make this measurement unreliable. We aim to define the criteria for inspiratory holds reliability during patient-triggered breaths. Material and methods: Flow, airway and esophageal pressure recordings during patient-triggered breaths from a multicentre observational study (BEARDS, NCT03447288) were evaluated by six independent raters, to determine plateau pressure readability. Features of “readable” and “unreadable” holds were compared. Muscle pressure estimate from the hold was validated against other measures of inspiratory effort. Results: Ninety-two percent of the recordings were consistently judged as readable or unreadable by at least four raters. Plateau measurement showed a high consistency among raters. A short time from airway peak to plateau pressure and a stable and longer plateau characterized readable holds. Unreadable plateaus were associated with higher indexes of inspiratory effort. Muscular pressure computed from the hold showed a strong correlation with independent indexes of inspiratory effort. Conclusion: The definition of objective parameters of plateau reliability during assisted-breath provides the clinician with a tool to target a safer assisted-ventilation and to detect the presence of high inspiratory effort

Automated detection and quantification of reverse triggering effort under mechanical ventilation

Background: Reverse triggering (RT) is a dyssynchrony defined by a respiratory muscle contraction following a passive mechanical insufflation. It is potentially harmful for the lung and the diaphragm, but its detection is challenging. Magnitude of effort generated by RT is currently unknown. Our objective was to validate supervised methods for automatic detection of RT using only airway pressure (Paw) and flow. A secondary objective was to describe the magnitude of the efforts generated during RT. Methods: We developed algorithms for detection of RT using Paw and flow waveforms. Experts having Paw, flow and esophageal pressure (Pes) assessed automatic detection accuracy by comparison against visual assessment. Muscular pressure (Pmus) was measured from Pes during RT, triggered breaths and ineffective efforts. Results: Tracings from 20 hypoxemic patients were used (mean age 65 ± 12 years, 65% male, ICU survival 75%). RT was present in 24% of the breaths ranging from 0 (patients paralyzed or in pressure support ventilation) to 93.3%. Automatic detection accuracy was 95.5%: sensitivity 83.1%, specificity 99.4%, positive predictive value 97.6%, negative predictive value 95.0% and kappa index of 0.87. Pmus of RT ranged from 1.3 to 36.8 cmH20, with a median of 8.7 cmH20. RT with breath stacking had the highest levels of Pmus, and RTs with no breath stacking were of similar magnitude than pressure support breaths. Conclusion: An automated detection tool using airway pressure and flow can diagnose reverse triggering with excellent accuracy. RT generates a median Pmus of 9 cmH2O with important variability between and within patients. Trial registration: BEARDS, NCT03447288