Skip to main content

Table 2 Effect of paralysis, PEEP and esophageal balloon position on the ratio between changes in esophageal pressure and airway pressure (ΔPes/ΔPaw)

From: The occlusion tests and end-expiratory esophageal pressure: measurements and comparison in controlled and assisted ventilation

ΔPes/ΔPawa

Statistical analysisb

PEEP (cmH2O)

Middle balloon position

Low balloon position

 

Coeff.

95 % CI

p

Positive pressure occlusion test—P

P versus no P

0.11

0.06

0.17

<0.001

0

1.14 ± 0.18

1.12 ± 0.15

PEEP 10 versus 0

−0.03

−0.09

0.03

0.376

10

1.09 ± 0.17

1.15 ± 0.14

Low versus middle position

−0.02

−0.08

0.04

0.515

Baydur Occlusion test—no P

P × low position

0.01

−0.07

0.08

0.848

0

1.02 ± 0.16

1.00 ± 0.13

P × PEEP 10

−0.02

−0.09

0.06

0.638

10

1.00 ± 0.11

1.05 ± 0.13

Low position × PEEP 10

0.08

−0.01

0.16

0.084

   

P × Low position × PEEP 10

−0.01

−0.12

0.10

0.849

  1. Multiple linear random-intercept regression models including main effects and interaction terms
  2. “P versus no P” (paralysis versus no paralysis) means a comparison between Baydur and positive pressure occlusion tests
  3. Statistically significant p value is in italics
  4. ΔPes change in esophageal pressure, ΔPaw change in airway pressure, PEEP positive end-expiratory pressure (cmH2O), P paralysis, no P no paralysis
  5. Data are presented as amean ± standard deviation and as b regression coefficient with 95 % confidence interval