Erroneous calibration of esophageal pressure in case of airway closure

Airway closure results in a lack of communication between proximal and distal airways unless the airway pressure (Paw) overcomes the airway opening pressure (AOP). This has been described in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation with acute respiratory distress syndrome, obesity, hydrostatic pulmonary edema and during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In these categories of patients, esophageal pressure (Pes) can guide the personalization of mechanical ventilation and calibration of the esophageal balloon is necessary to obtain reliable Pes measurements. The impact of airway closure has never been envisaged. This study investigated the impact of airway closure on the calibration of the esophageal balloon by the ∆Paw/∆Pes following a positive pressure occlusion test during passive mechanical ventilation. The calibration test was performed in twelve human cadavers with airway closure at end-expiration at different levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and at end-inspiration. The ∆Paw/∆Pes measured at end-expiration and at end-inspiration were significantly different when total PEEP was lower than AOP (estimated means 0.42 [0.40; 0.44] vs. 0.95 [0.92; 0.97], P < 0.001), while this difference was not observed when total PEEP was higher than AOP (estimated means 0.99 [0.92; 1.05] vs. 0.99 [0.92; 1.06], P = 0.854). These results were corroborated by observations during esophageal balloon calibration in two patients requiring Pes monitoring for clinical management. In case of airway closure, compression of the chest is not fully transmitted to the airways. This can lead to a conspicuous underestimation of the ∆Paw/∆Pes and poor reliability of this monitoring technique when the test takes place below AOP. Our results favor a positive pressure occlusion test performed during an end-inspiratory occlusion as the new standard of operative procedures for positioning and calibrating the esophageal balloon.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Critical Care
Published
2025-05-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05416-5
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.56

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Erroneous calibration of esophageal pressure in case of airway closure

Emanuele Rezoagli, Mayson Laércio de Araújo Sousa, Arnaud Lesimple, Thomas Piraino et al.
3 citations
Critical Care
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
4.56
article

Erroneous calibration of esophageal pressure in case of airway closure

Emanuele Rezoagli, Mayson Laércio de Araújo Sousa, Arnaud Lesimple, Thomas Piraino, François Beloncle, Mattia Docci, Davide Raimondi Cominesi, Andrea Restivo, Alain Mercat, Jean-Christophe M. Richard
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Airway closure results in a lack of communication between proximal and distal airways unless the airway pressure (Paw) overcomes the airway opening pressure (AOP). This has been described in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation with acute respiratory distress syndrome, obesity, hydrostatic pulmonary edema and during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In these categories of patients, esophageal pressure (Pes) can guide the personalization of mechanical ventilation and calibration of the esophageal balloon is necessary to obtain reliable Pes measurements. The impact of airway closure has never been envisaged. This study investigated the impact of airway closure on the calibration of the esophageal balloon by the ∆Paw/∆Pes following a positive pressure occlusion test during passive mechanical ventilation. The calibration test was performed in twelve human cadavers with airway closure at end-expiration at different levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and at end-inspiration. The ∆Paw/∆Pes measured at end-expiration and at end-inspiration were significantly different when total PEEP was lower than AOP (estimated means 0.42 [0.40; 0.44] vs. 0.95 [0.92; 0.97], P < 0.001), while this difference was not observed when total PEEP was higher than AOP (estimated means 0.99 [0.92; 1.05] vs. 0.99 [0.92; 1.06], P = 0.854). These results were corroborated by observations during esophageal balloon calibration in two patients requiring Pes monitoring for clinical management. In case of airway closure, compression of the chest is not fully transmitted to the airways. This can lead to a conspicuous underestimation of the ∆Paw/∆Pes and poor reliability of this monitoring technique when the test takes place below AOP. Our results favor a positive pressure occlusion test performed during an end-inspiratory occlusion as the new standard of operative procedures for positioning and calibrating the esophageal balloon.

Critical CareVol. 29(1)
University of Toronto (CA), Muscular Dystrophy Canada (CA), Azienda Ospedaliera San Gerardo (IT), Health Solutions (Sweden) (SE), Air Liquide (France) (FR), Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IT), Unity Health Toronto, University of Manitoba (CA), Université d'Angers (FR), University of Milano-Bicocca (IT), McMaster University (CA)
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Cerebra
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
4.56
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.