Importance and frequency of using esophageal pressure monitoring during ventilatory support. A cross-sectional study

BackgroundEsophageal pressure (Pes) measurement has been used successfully over the past half-century to delineate the respiratory systems physiology and mechanics. However, there is no information about the importance of Pes monitoring in different scenarios. We aimed to assess the importance and frequency of Pes monitoring in different scenarios according to health professionals and its importance in decision-making. MethodCross-sectional study with an international survey. We included healthcare professionals dedicated to patients receiving invasive and non-invasive ventilation without limits of age, gender, experience and seniority in the position or country of residence. We used non-probabilistic snowball sampling. ResultsWe included 152 participants, with 54.61% (83) males. The response rate to the survey questions ranged from 100% to 71.71%. Of the included participants, 91/139 (65.47%) were respiratory therapists, and 31/139 (22.30%) were Physicians. Most participants worked in mixed ICU. 109/121 (90.08%) participants considered Pes monitoring very important or extremely important for teaching or research. Only 32/112 (28.57%) reported using Pes frequently for these proposals. 49/109 (40.50%) participants considered Pes monitoring very important or extremely important during non-invasive ventilatory support. Only 17/112 (15.18%) reported using Pes frequently for these proposals. Regarding MV individualisation in ARDS during total ventilatory support, 94/121 (77.69%) participants considered Pes monitoring very important or extremely important. Only 33/112 (29.46%) reported using Pes frequently in this scenario. 90/121 (74.38%) also considered it very important or extremely important for MV individualisation in obese patients without ARDS, and 108/121 (89.26%) considered it very important or extremely important for MV individualisation in obese patients with ARDS during total ventilatory support. Only 25/112 (22.32%) and 39/112 (34.82%) reported using Pes frequently in these scenarios, respectively. ConclusionsPes monitoring was considered very important or extremely important for most assessed scenarios. Conversely, most participants rarely or never used it, although it changed therapeutic decisions often when implemented.