↓ Skip to main content

Use of esophageal balloon pressure-volume curve analysis to determine esophageal wall elastance and calibrate raw esophageal pressure: a bench experiment and clinical study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Use of esophageal balloon pressure-volume curve analysis to determine esophageal wall elastance and calibrate raw esophageal pressure: a bench experiment and clinical study
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12871-018-0488-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiu-Mei Sun, Guang-Qiang Chen, Hua-Wei Huang, Xuan He, Yan-Lin Yang, Zhong-Hua Shi, Ming Xu, Jian-Xin Zhou

Abstract

Accurate measurement of esophageal pressure (Pes) depends on proper filling of the balloon. Esophageal wall elastance (Ees) may also influence the measurement. We examined the estimation of balloon-surrounding elastance in a bench model and investigated a simplified calibrating procedure of Pes in a balloon with relatively small volume. The Cooper balloon catheter (geometric volume of 2.8 ml) was used in the present study. The balloon was progressively inflated in different gas-tight glass chambers with different inner volumes. Chamber elastance was measured by the fitting of chamber pressure and balloon volume. Balloon pressure-volume (P-V) curves were obtained, and the slope of the intermediate linear section was defined as the estimated chamber elastance. Balloon volume tests were also performed in 40 patients under controlled ventilation. The slope of the intermediate linear section on the end-expiratory esophageal P-V curve was calculated as the Ees. The balloon volume with the largest Pes tidal swing was defined as the best volume. Pressure generated by the esophageal wall during balloon inflation (Pew) was estimated as the product of Ees and best volume. Because the clinical intermediate linear section enclosed filling volume of 0.6 to 1.4 ml in each of the patient, we simplified the estimation of Ees by only using parameters at these two filling volumes. In the bench experiment, bias (lower and upper limits of agreement) was 0.5 (0.2 to 0.8) cmH2O/ml between the estimated and measured chamber elastance. The intermediate linear section on the clinical and bench P-V curves resembled each other. Median (interquartile range) Ees was 3.3 (2.5-4.1) cmH2O/ml. Clinical best volume was 1.0 (0.8-1.2) ml and ranged from 0.6 to 1.4 ml. Estimated Pew at the best volume was 2.8 (2.5-3.5) cmH2O with a maximum value of 5.2 cmH2O. Compared with the conventional method, bias (lower and upper limits of agreement) of Ees estimated by the simple method was - 0.1 (- 0.7 to 0.6) cmH2O/ml. The slope of the intermediate linear section on the balloon P-V curve correlated with the balloon-surrounding elastance. The estimation of Ees and calibration of Pes were feasible for a small-volume-balloon. Identifier NCT02976844 . Retrospectively registered on 29 November 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Other 3 14%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Chemistry 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2019.
All research outputs
#6,357,029
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#233
of 1,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,075
of 446,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#7
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,510 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,257 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.