Sachdev Anil, Kumar Anil, Mehra Bharat, Gupta Neeraj, Gupta Dhiren, Gupta Suresh, Chugh Parul
Department of Pediatrics, Institute of Child Health, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Department of Research, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2025 Mar 1;26(3):e354-e363. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000003609. Epub 2024 Sep 18.
In this study, we have reviewed the association between esophageal pressure-guided positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) setting and oxygenation and lung mechanics with a conventional mechanical ventilation (MV) strategy in patient with moderate to severe pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS).
Retrospective cohort, 2018-2021.
Tertiary PICU.
Moderate to severe PARDS patients who required MV with PEEP of greater than or equal to 8 cm H 2 O.
Esophageal pressure (i.e., transpulmonary pressure [P TP ]) guided MV vs. not.
We identified 26 PARDS cases who were divided into those who had been managed with P TP -guided MV (P TP group) and those managed with conventional ventilation strategy (non-P TP ). Oxygenation and lung mechanics were compared between groups at baseline (0 hr) and 24, 48, and 72 hours of MV. There were 13 patients in each group in the first 24 hours. At 48 and 72 hours, there were 11 in P TP group and 12 in non-P TP group. On comparing these groups, first, use of P TP monitoring was associated with higher median (interquartile range) mean airway pressure at 24 hours (18 hr [18-20 hr] vs. 15 hr [13-18 hr]; p = 0.01) and 48 hours (19 hr [17-19 hr] vs. 15 hr [13-17 hr]; p = 0.01). Second, use of P TP was associated with higher PEEP at 24, 48, and 72 hours (all p < 0.05). Third, use of P TP was associated with lower F io2 and greater Pa o2 to F io2 ratio at 72 hours. Last, there were 18 of 26 survivors, and we failed to identify an association between use of P TP monitoring and survival.
In this cohort of moderate to severe PARDS cases undergoing MV with PEEP greater than or equal to 8 cm H 2 O, we have identified some favorable associations of oxygenation status when P TP -guided MV was used vs. not. Larger studies are required.
在本研究中,我们回顾了中度至重度小儿急性呼吸窘迫综合征(PARDS)患者采用食管压力引导呼气末正压(PEEP)设置与氧合及肺力学之间的关联,并与传统机械通气(MV)策略进行比较。
2018 - 2021年回顾性队列研究。
三级儿科重症监护病房。
需要MV且PEEP大于或等于8 cm H₂O的中度至重度PARDS患者。
食管压力(即跨肺压[PTP])引导的MV与非食管压力引导的MV。
我们确定了26例PARDS病例,分为接受PTP引导MV治疗的患者(PTP组)和采用传统通气策略治疗的患者(非PTP组)。在MV开始时(0小时)以及MV后24、48和72小时,比较两组之间的氧合及肺力学情况。最初24小时,每组各有13例患者。在48和72小时时,PTP组有11例,非PTP组有12例。比较这些组时,首先,使用PTP监测与24小时(18 cm H₂O [18 - 20 cm H₂O] 对比15 cm H₂O [13 - 18 cm H₂O];p = 0.01)和48小时(19 cm H₂O [17 - 19 cm H₂O] 对比15 cm H₂O [13 - 17 cm H₂O];p = 0.01)时更高的中位(四分位间距)平均气道压相关。其次,使用PTP与24、48和72小时时更高的PEEP相关(所有p < 0.