Pediatric anesthesia & critical care
Phenotypes based on respiratory drive and effort to identify the risk factors when P0.1 fails to estimate ∆PES in ventilated children
Authors' conclusion
In patients with PARDS, P0.1 commonly underestimated high respiratory effort particularly with high airway resistance, high tidal volume, and high doses of opioids.
Study context
- Population
- Ventilated children and young adults with pediatric ARDS (pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS)) in an RCT of lung and diaphragm protective ventilation953 patient days
- Participants
- 222 children
- Comparison
- Mismatch phenotypes vs all other spontaneous breathing phenotypes
- High underestimated effortn = 119
- Overestimated effortn = 37
- Primary endpoint
- Factors associated with each mismatch phenotype between ∆PES-REAL and P0.1-predicted ∆PES (∆PES-PRED = 5.91*P0.1)
Methodological detailsphysiological data, logistic regression
- Physiological data
- Logistic regression
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Risk factors for mismatch phenotypes
Each group vs other spontaneous breathing phenotypesAdjusted odds ratio (95% CI)P value
High underestimated efforthigher airway resistance, per log unit increase
5.62(2.58–12.26)
P < 0.001High underestimated efforthigher tidal volume, per cubic unit increase
1.53(1.04–2.24)
P = 0.03High underestimated efforthigher opioid use
2.4(1.12–5.13)
P = 0.024High underestimated effortset ventilator rate
0.96(0.93–0.99)
P = 0.005Overestimated effortalveolar dead space
1.05(1.01–1.09)
P = 0.007Overestimated effortrespiratory resistance
0.32(0.13–0.81)
P = 0.017- ∆PES-REAL and ∆PES-PRED aligned in active patient days
- 536 (77%)
Original publication
Phenotypes based on respiratory drive and effort to identify the risk factors when P0.1 fails to estimate ∆PES in ventilated children. Crit Care. Published 4 October 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →