English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Purpose  The COVID-19-related shortage of ICU beds magnified the need of tools to properly titrate the ventilator assistance. We investigated whether bedside-available indices such as the ultrasonographic changes in diaphragm thickening ratio (TR) and the tidal swing in central venous pressure (ΔCVP) are reliable estimates of inspiratory effort, assessed as the tidal swing in esophageal pressure (ΔPes).    Methods  Prospective, observational clinical investigation in the intensive care unit of a tertiary care Hospital. Fourteen critically-ill patients were enrolled (age 64 ± 7 years, BMI 29 ± 4 kg/m 2 ), after 6 [3; 9] days from onset of assisted ventilation. A three-level pressure support trial was performed, at 10 (PS10), 5 (PS5) and 0 cmH 2 O (PS0). In each step, the esophageal and central venous pressure tidal swing were recorded, as well as diaphragm ultrasound.    Results  The reduction of pressure support was associated with an increased respiratory rate and a reduced tidal volume, while minute ventilation was unchanged. ΔPes significantly increased with reducing support (5 [3; 8] vs. 8 [14; 13] vs. 12 [6; 16] cmH 2 O, p < 0.0001), as did the diaphragm TR (9.2 ± 6.1 vs. 17.6 ± 7.2 vs. 28.0 ± 10.0%, p < 0.0001) and the ΔCVP (4 [3; 7] vs. 8 [5; 9] vs. 10 [7; 11] cmH 2 O, p < 0.0001). ΔCVP was significantly associated with ΔPes (R 2  = 0.810, p < 0.001), as was diaphragm TR, albeit with a lower coefficient of determination (R 2  = 0.399, p < 0.001).    Conclusions  In patients with COVID-19-associated respiratory failure undergoing assisted mechanical ventilation, ΔCVP is a better estimate of inspiratory effort than diaphragm ultrasound.    Supplementary Information  The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10877-021-00674-4.

journal of clinical monitoring and computing

Central venous pressure swing outperforms diaphragm ultrasound as a measure of inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation in COVID-19 patients