Respiratory failure & ventilation
Clinical validation of a capnodynamic method for measuring end-expiratory lung volume in critically ill patients
An erratum to this article was published (Crit Care, 14 Jun 2024 ↗)
Authors' conclusion
In this first validation in critically ill patients, the capnodynamic method provided good estimates of both total and functional EELV. Bias improved after correcting EELVCO2 for extra-alveolar CO2 content when compared with CT estimated volume.
Study context
- Population
- Mechanically ventilated critically ill patients scheduled for diagnostic CT25 ARDS (24 COVID-19)
- Participants
- 46 participants
- Comparison
- Capnodynamic end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) vs CT-measured EELV
- Outcome
- Agreement with EELVCT (Bland Altman)
Methodological detailsprospective
- Prospective
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Bias
- 285 ml
95% CI + 513 to - 1083
Uncorrected EELVCO2 · limits of agreement (LoA); r2 0.58; tended to overestimate
Bias
- 23 ml
95% CI + 763 to - 716
Corrected EELVCO2 · LoA
Bias
- 2.75 ml
95% CI + 755 to - 761
Corrected EELVCO2 · functional EELVCT; LoA; r2 0.59; best agreement
Further findings
| Outcome | Uncorrected EELVCO2 | EELVCT |
|---|---|---|
| EELV vs theoretical functional residual capacity | 40 % reduction | 39 % reduction |
- EELV vs theoretical functional residual capacity: p < 0.0001
Method performance, ARDS vs non-ARDS (subgroup)
- No major differences in performance between ARDS and non-ARDS patients
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →