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