ArticleHeliyon2023
Evaluation of the accuracy of established patient inspiratory effort estimation methods during mechanical support ventilation.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a clinical need for monitoring inspiratory effort to prevent lung- and diaphragm injury in patients who receive supportive mechanical ventilation in an Intensive Care Unit. Different pressure-based techniques are available to estimate this inspiratory effort at the bedside, but the accuracy of their effort estimation is uncertain since they are all based on a simplified linear model of the respiratory system, which omits gas compressibility of air, and the viscoelasticity and nonlinearities of the respiratory system. The aim of this in-silico study was to provide an overview of the pressure-based estimation techniques and to evaluate their accuracy using a more sophisticated model of the respiratory system and ventilator. The influence of the following parameters on the accuracy of the pressure-based estimation techniques was evaluated using the in-silico model: 1) the patient's respiratory mechanics 2) PEEP and the inspiratory pressure of the ventilator 3) gas compressibility of air 4) viscoelasticity of the respiratory system 5) the strength of the inspiratory effort. The best-performing technique in terms of accuracy was the whole breath occlusion. The average error and maximum error were the lowest for all patient archetypes. We found that the error was related to the expansion of gas in the breathing set and lungs and respiratory compliance. However, concerns exist that other factors not included in the model, such as a changed muscle-force relation during an occlusion, might influence the true accuracy. The estimation techniques based on the esophageal pressure showed an error related to the viscoelastic element in the model which leads to a higher error than the occlusion. The error of the esophageal pressure-based techniques is therefore highly dependent on the pathology of the patient and the settings of the ventilator and might change over time while a patient recovers or becomes more ill.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.