Tonelli Roberto, Protti Alessandro, Spinelli Elena, Grieco Domenico Luca, Yoshida Takeshi, Jonkman Annemijn H, Akoumianaki Evangelia, Telias Irene, Docci Mattia, Rodrigues Antenor, Perez Joaquin, Piquilloud Lise, Beitler Jeremy, Liu Ling, Roca Oriol, Pisani Lara, Goligher Ewan, Carteaux Guillaume, Bellani Giacomo, Clini Enrico, Zhou Jian-Xin, Grasselli Giacomo, Jaber Samir, Demoule Alexandre, Talmor Daniel, Heunks Leo, Brochard Laurent, Mauri Tommaso
Respiratory Disease Unit, Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences of Motherhood and Child, University Hospital of Modena, Milan, Italy.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.
Crit Care. 2025 Jul 31;29(1):339. doi: 10.1186/s13054-025-05526-0.
Monitoring inspiratory drive and effort may aid proper selection and setting of respiratory support in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF), whether they are intubated or not. Although diaphragmatic electrical activity (EAdi) and esophageal manometry can be considered the reference methods for assessing respiratory drive and inspiratory effort, respectively, various alternative techniques exist, each with distinct advantages and limitations. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of bedside methods to assess respiratory drive and effort, with a primary focus on patients with ARF. First, EAdi and esophageal manometry are described and discussed as reference techniques. Then, alternative methods are categorized along the neuromechanical pathway from inspiratory drive to muscular effort into three groups: (1) techniques assessing the respiratory drive: airway occlusion pressure (P0.1), mean inspiratory flow (Vt/Ti) and respiratory muscle surface electromyography (sEMG); (2) techniques assessing the respiratory muscle effort: whole-breath occlusion pressure (ΔPocc), pressure-muscle index (PMI), nasal pressure swing (ΔPnose), diaphragm ultrasonography (USdi), central venous pressure swing (ΔCVP), breathing effort (BREF) models, and flow index; (3) techniques and clinical parameters assessing the consequences of effort: tidal volume (Vt), electrical impedance tomography (EIT), dyspnea. For each, we summarize the physiological rationale, measurement methodology, interpretation of results, and key limitations.
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-025-05526-0.
监测吸气驱动力和努力程度可能有助于为急性呼吸衰竭(ARF)患者正确选择和设置呼吸支持,无论患者是否已插管。尽管膈电活动(EAdi)和食管测压法可分别被视为评估呼吸驱动力和吸气努力程度的参考方法,但仍存在各种替代技术,每种技术都有其独特的优点和局限性。本叙述性综述全面概述了评估呼吸驱动力和努力程度的床边方法,主要关注ARF患者。首先,将EAdi和食管测压法作为参考技术进行描述和讨论。然后,沿着从吸气驱动力到肌肉努力的神经机械途径,将替代方法分为三组:(1)评估呼吸驱动力的技术:气道阻断压(P0.1)、平均吸气流量(Vt/Ti)和呼吸肌表面肌电图(sEMG);(2)评估呼吸肌努力程度的技术:全呼吸阻断压(ΔPocc)、压力-肌肉指数(PMI)、鼻压摆动(ΔPnose)、膈肌超声检查(USdi)、中心静脉压摆动(ΔCVP)、呼吸努力(BREF)模型和流量指数;(3)评估努力后果的技术和临床参数:潮气量(Vt)、电阻抗断层成像(EIT)、呼吸困难。对于每种方法,我们总结了其生理原理、测量方法、结果解释和主要局限性。
在线版本包含可在10.1186/s13054-025-05526-0获取的补充材料。