Lung and chest wall mechanics in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, expiratory flow limitation, and airway closure

• Published in: Journal of applied physiology (1985) 2020-06, Vol.128 (6), p.1594-1603
• Main Authors: Guérin, Claude, Terzi, Nicolas, Galerneau, Louis-Marie, Mezidi, Mehdi, Yonis, Hodane, Baboi, Loredana, Kreitmann, Louis, Turbil, Emanuele, Cour, Martin, Argaud, Laurent, Louis, Bruno
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 8750-7587; 1522-1601
• DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00059.2020

Tidal expiratory flow limitation (EFL), which may herald airway closure (AC), is a mechanism of loss of aeration in ARDS. In this prospective, short-term, two-center study, we measured static and dynamic chest wall (Est,cw and Edyn,cw) and lung (Est,L and Edyn,L) elastance with esophageal pressure, EFL, and AC at 5 cmH O positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in intubated, sedated, and paralyzed ARDS patients. For EFL determination, we used the atmospheric method and a new device allowing comparison of tidal flow during expiration to PEEP and to atmosphere. AC was validated when airway opening pressure (AOP) assessed from volume-pressure curve was found greater than PEEP by at least 1 cmH O. EFL was defined whenever flow did not increase between exhalation to PEEP and to atmosphere over all or part of expiration. Elastance values were expressed as percentage of normal predicted values (%N). Among the 25 patients included, eight had EFL (32%) and 13 AOP (52%). Between patients with and without EFL Edyn,cw [median (1st to 3rd quartiles)] was 70 (16-127) and 102 (70-142) %N ( = 0.32) and Edyn,L338 (332-763) and 224 (160-275) %N ( < 0.001). The corresponding values for Est,cw and Est,L were 70 (56-88) and 85 (64-103) %N ( = 0.35) and 248 (206-348) and 170 (144-195) ( = 0.02), respectively. Dynamic E had an area receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.88 [95% confidence intervals 0.83-0.92] for EFL and 0.74[0.68-0.79] for AOP. Higher Edyn,L was accurate to predict EFL in ARDS patients; AC can occur independently of EFL, and both should be assessed concurrently in ARDS patients. Expiratory flow limitation (EFL) and airway closure (AC) were observed in 32% and 52%, respectively, of 25 patients with ARDS investigated during mechanical ventilation in supine position with a positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cmH O. The performance of dynamic lung elastance to detect expiratory flow limitation was good and better than that to detect airway closure. The vast majority of patients with EFL also had AC; however, AC can occur in the absence of EFL.