Skip to main content

Table 4 Effect of PEEP and esophageal balloon position on partitioned respiratory mechanics in sedated and paralyzed patients

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

Respiratory mechanicsa Statistical analysisb
PEEP (cmH2O) Middle balloon position Low balloon position   Coef. 95 % CI p
ElastanceRS cmH2O/L    PEEP 10 versus 0 −0.06 −0.75 0.62 0.857
0 18.8 ± 5.1 18.3 ± 4.9 Low versus middle position −0.57 −1.26 0.11 0.103
10 18.8 ± 5.1 18.5 ± 5.1 Low position × PEEP 10 0.29 −0.68 1.26 0.559
ElastanceL cmH2O/L      
0 12.5 ± 5.1 11.6 ± 4.7 PEEP 10 versus 0 0.64 −0.26 1.55 0.164
10 13.2 ± 4.1 13.3 ± 4.2 Low versus middle position −0.99 −1.90 −0.08 0.033
    Low position × PEEP 10 1.13 −0.15 2.42 0.083
ElastanceCW cmH2O/L      
0 6.3 ± 3.4 6.7 ± 4.2 PEEP 10 versus 0 −0.71 −1.39 −0.02 0.044
10 5.6 ± 2.7 5.2 ± 3.0 Low versus middle position 0.42 −0.27 1.11 0.231
    Low position × PEEP 10 −0.85 −1.81 0.12 0.088
El–End–Insp Tp cmH2O      
0 6.3 ± 2.6 5.7 ± 2.2 PEEP 10 versus 0 8.23 7.76 8.70 <0.001
10 14.6 ± 2.7 13.5 ± 2.5 Low versus middle position −0.61 −1.09 −0.14 0.011
    Low position × PEEP 10 −0.50 −1.17 0.17 0.142
  1. Statistically significant p values are in italics
  2. PEEP positive end-expiratory pressure, Elastance RS elastance of respiratory system, Elastance L elastance of lung, Elastance CW elastance of chest wall, El–End–Insp Tp elastance-derived end-inspiratory transpulmonary pressure
  3. Data are presented as amean ± standard deviation. b p value from linear random-intercept regression models