IntroductionEnd-expiratory lung volume (EELV) is decreased in acute respiratory distress
syndrome (ARDS), and bedside EELV measurement may help to set positive
end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Nitrogen washout/washin for EELV measurement is
available at the bedside, but assessments of accuracy and precision in real-life
conditions are scant. Our purpose was to (a) assess EELV measurement precision in
ARDS patients at two PEEP levels (three pairs of measurements), and (b) compare
the changes (Δ) induced by PEEP for total EELV with the PEEP-induced changes
in lung volume above functional residual capacity measured with passive spirometry
(ΔPEEP-volume). The minimal predicted increase in lung volume was calculated
from compliance at low PEEP and ΔPEEP to ensure the validity of lung-volume
changes.MethodsThirty-four patients with ARDS were prospectively included in five
university-hospital intensive care units. ΔEELV and ΔPEEP volumes were
compared between 6 and 15 cm H2O of PEEP.ResultsAfter exclusion of three patients, variability of the nitrogen technique was less
than 4%, and the largest difference between measurements was 81 ± 64 ml.
ΔEELV and ΔPEEP-volume were only weakly correlated (r2
= 0.47); 95% confidence interval limits, -414 to 608 ml). In four
patients with the highest PEEP (≥ 16 cm H2O), ΔEELV was
lower than the minimal predicted increase in lung volume, suggesting flawed
measurements, possibly due to leaks. Excluding those from the analysis markedly
strengthened the correlation between ΔEELV and ΔPEEP volume (r2
= 0.80).ConclusionsIn most patients, the EELV technique has good reproducibility and accuracy, even
at high PEEP. At high pressures, its accuracy may be limited in case of leaks. The
minimal predicted increase in lung volume may help to check for accuracy.