ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025
Erroneous calibration of esophageal pressure in case of airway closure.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Monitoring of breathing effort through pressure time product measurement using airway occlusion pressure (PTPBMC anesthesiology · 2026Trial
- ARDS management beyond the guidelines: a practical physiology-based approach to individualized care.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Impact of Baydur ratio correction on the reliability of esophageal pressure measurement.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2026Article
- Obesity: biomechanical implications for mechanical ventilation.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Combined With Esophageal Pressure-Guided Mechanical Ventilation as Salvage Therapies in Postpneumonectomy Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- Airway opening pressure in mechanically ventilated patients: regional distribution and impact of body position.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Assessing inspiratory drive and effort in critically ill patients at the bedside.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Airway closure results in a lack of communication between proximal and distal airways unless the airway pressure (Paw) overcomes the airway opening pressure (AOP). This has been described in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation with acute respiratory distress syndrome, obesity, hydrostatic pulmonary edema and during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In these categories of patients, esophageal pressure (Pes) can guide the personalization of mechanical ventilation and calibration of the esophageal balloon is necessary to obtain reliable Pes measurements. The impact of airway closure has never been envisaged. This study investigated the impact of airway closure on the calibration of the esophageal balloon by the ∆Paw/∆Pes following a positive pressure occlusion test during passive mechanical ventilation. The calibration test was performed in twelve human cadavers with airway closure at end-expiration at different levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and at end-inspiration. The ∆Paw/∆Pes measured at end-expiration and at end-inspiration were significantly different when total PEEP was lower than AOP (estimated means 0.42 [0.40; 0.44] vs. 0.95 [0.92; 0.97], P < 0.001), while this difference was not observed when total PEEP was higher than AOP (estimated means 0.99 [0.92; 1.05] vs. 0.99 [0.92; 1.06], P = 0.854). These results were corroborated by observations during esophageal balloon calibration in two patients requiring Pes monitoring for clinical management. In case of airway closure, compression of the chest is not fully transmitted to the airways. This can lead to a conspicuous underestimation of the ∆Paw/∆Pes and poor reliability of this monitoring technique when the test takes place below AOP. Our results favor a positive pressure occlusion test performed during an end-inspiratory occlusion as the new standard of operative procedures for positioning and calibrating the esophageal balloon.
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.