Annals of Intensive Care

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 mechanics^a			Statistical analysis^b
PEEP (cmH₂O)	Middle balloon position	Low balloon position		Coef.	95 % CI		p
Elastance_RS 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
Elastance_L 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
Elastance_CW 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

Statistically significant p values are in italics
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
Data are presented as ^amean ± standard deviation. ^b p value from linear random-intercept regression models

Back to article page