Determinants of the esophageal-pleural pressure relationship in humans

Esophageal pressure has been suggested as adequate surrogate of the pleural pressure. We investigate after lung surgery the determinants of the esophageal and intrathoracic pressures and their differences. The esophageal pressure (through esophageal balloon) and the intrathoracic/pleural pressure (through the chest tube on the surgery side) were measured after surgery in 28 patients immediately after lobectomy or wedge resection. Measurements were made in the nondependent lateral position (without or with ventilation of the operated lung) and in the supine position. In the lateral position with the nondependent lung, collapsed or ventilated, the differences between esophageal and pleural pressure amounted to 4.4 ± 1.6 and 5.1 ± 1.7 cmH2O. In the supine position, the difference amounted to 7.3 ± 2.8 cmH2O. In the supine position, the estimated compressive forces on the mediastinum were 10.5 ± 3.1 cmH2O and on the iso-gravitational pleural plane 3.2 ± 1.8 cmH2O. A simple model describing the roles of chest, lung, and pneumothorax volume matching on the pleural pressure genesis was developed; modeled pleural pressure = 1.0057 × measured pleural pressure + 0.6592 ( r2 = 0.8). Whatever the position and the ventilator settings, the esophageal pressure changed in a 1:1 ratio with the changes in pleural pressure. Consequently, chest wall elastance (Ecw) measured by intrathoracic (Ecw = ΔPpl/tidal volume) or esophageal pressure (Ecw = ΔPes/tidal volume) was identical in all the positions we tested. We conclude that esophageal and pleural pressures may be largely different depending on body position (gravitational forces) and lung-chest wall volume matching. Their changes, however, are identical. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Esophageal and pleural pressure changes occur at a 1:1 ratio, fully justifying the use of esophageal pressure to compute the chest wall elastance and the changes in pleural pressure and in lung stress. The absolute value of esophageal and pleural pressures may be largely different, depending on the body position (gravitational forces) and the lung-chest wall volume matching. Therefore, the absolute value of esophageal pressure should not be used as a surrogate of pleural pressure.

Prone Positioning in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Prone positioning is nowadays considered as one of the most effective strategies for patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The evolution of the pathophysiological understanding surrounding the prone position closely follows the history of ARDS. At the beginning, the focus of the prone position was the improvement in oxygenation attributed to a perfusion redistribution. However, the mechanisms behind the prone position are more complex. Indeed, the positive effects on oxygenation and CO2 clearance of the prone position are to be ascribed to a more homogeneous inflation–ventilation, to the lung/thoracic shape mismatch, and to the change of chest wall elastance. In the past 20 years, five major trials have tried, starting from different theories, hypotheses, and designs, to demonstrate the effectiveness of the prone position, which finally found its definitive place among the different ARDS supportive therapies.

Effects of Prone Positioning on Transpulmonary Pressures and End-expiratory Volumes in Patients without Lung Disease

Background The effects of prone positioning on esophageal pressures have not been investigated in mechanically ventilated patients. Our objective was to characterize effects of prone positioning on esophageal pressures, transpulmonary pressure, and lung volume, thereby assessing the potential utility of esophageal pressure measurements in setting positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in prone patients. Methods We studied 16 patients undergoing spine surgery during general anesthesia and neuromuscular blockade. We measured airway pressure, esophageal pressures, airflow, and volume, and calculated the expiratory reserve volume and the elastances of the lung and chest wall in supine and prone positions. Results Esophageal pressures at end expiration with 0 cm H2O PEEP decreased from supine to prone by 5.64 cm H2O (95% CI, 3.37 to 7.90; P < 0.0001). Expiratory reserve volume measured at relaxation volume increased from supine to prone by 0.15 l (interquartile range, 0.25, 0.10; P = 0.003). Chest wall elastance increased from supine to prone by 7.32 (95% CI, 4.77 to 9.87) cm H2O/l at PEEP 0 (P < 0.0001) and 6.66 cm H2O/l (95% CI, 3.91 to 9.41) at PEEP 7 (P = 0.0002). Median driving pressure, the change in airway pressure from end expiration to end-inspiratory plateau, increased in the prone position at PEEP 0 (3.70 cm H2O; 95% CI, 1.74 to 5.66; P = 0.001) and PEEP 7 (3.90 cm H2O; 95% CI, 2.72 to 5.09; P < 0.0001). Conclusions End-expiratory esophageal pressure decreases, and end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure and expiratory reserve volume increase, when patients are moved from supine to prone position. Mean respiratory system driving pressure increases in the prone position due to increased chest wall elastance. The increase in end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure and expiratory reserve volume may be one mechanism for the observed clinical benefit with prone positioning.

Dynamic behavior of excised dog rib cage: dependence on muscle

To assess the contribution of the rib cage to chest wall elastance and hysteresis, we measured force-displacement behavior of the isolated canine rib cage during sinusoidal forcing of the sternum in the midsagittal plane at low frequencies (0.02-2.0 Hz). Elastance of the rib cage was nearly invariant with frequency of forcing from 0.02 to 1.0 Hz and decreased with increasing amplitude. Hysteresis, the width of the force-displacement loop at middisplacement (zero displacement), was nearly constant with frequency below 1.0 Hz and increased with increasing amplitude of forcing. Removal of muscle reduced elastance and hysteresis of the rib cage substantially. The data suggest that the excised dog rib cage shows dynamic behavior similar to that of the intact human rib cage and chest wall and that respiratory muscle is responsible for a major part of the behavior of the passive chest wall. We also calculated the major and minor stiffnesses in the sagittal plane, which differed by a factor of 3-11, and their directions lay close to the dorsoventral and cephalocaudal axes, respectively. Removal of muscle reduced the stiffnesses but did not change their directions. Thus, although respiratory muscles impede motion in the sagittal plane, they do not alter its pattern.