This report summarizes current physiological and technical knowledge on esophageal pressure (Pes) measurements in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. The respiratory changes in Pes are representative of changes in pleural pressure. The difference between airway pressure (Paw) and Pes is a valid estimate of transpulmonary pressure. Pes helps determine what fraction of Paw is applied to overcome lung and chest wall elastance. Pes is usually measured via a catheter with an airfilled thin-walled latex balloon inserted nasally or orally. To validate Pes measurement, a dynamic occlusion test measures the ratio of change in Pes to change in Paw during inspiratory efforts against a closed airway. A ratio close to unity indicates that the system provides a valid measurement. Provided transpulmonary pressure is the lung-distending pressure, and that chest wall elastance may vary among individuals, a physiologically based ventilator strategy should take the transpulmonary pressure into account. For monitoring purposes, clinicians rely mostly on Paw and flow waveforms. However, these measurements may mask profound patient-ventilator asynchrony and do not allow respiratory muscle effort assessment. Pes also permits the measurement of transmural vascular pressures during both passive and active breathing. Pes measurements have enhanced our understanding of the pathophysiology of acute lung injury, patient-ventilator interaction, and weaning failure. The use of Pes for positive end-expiratory pressure titration may help improve oxygenation and compliance. Pes measurements make it feasible to individualize the level of muscle effort during mechanical ventilation and weaning. The time is now right to apply the knowledge obtained with Pes to improve the management of critically ill and ventilator-dependent patients.

To compare, in a group of difficult to wean critically ill patients, the short-term effects of neurally adjusted ventilator assist (NAVA), proportional assist (PAV+) and pressure support (PSV) ventilation on patient-ventilator interaction. Methods: Seventeen patients were studied during NAVA, PAV+ and PSV with and without artificial increase in ventilator demands (dead space in 10 and chest load in 7 patients). Prior to challenge addition the level of assist in each of the three modes tested was adjusted to get the same level of patient's effort. Results: Compared to PSV, proportional modes favored tidal volume variability. Patient effort increase after dead space was comparable among the three modes. After chest load, patient effort increased significantly more with NAVA and PSV compared to PAV+. Triggering delay was significantly higher with PAV+. The linear correlation between tidal volume and inspiratory integral of transdiaphragmatic pressure (PTPdi) was weaker with NAVA than with PAV+ and PSV on account of a weaker inspiratory integral of the electrical activity of the diaphragm (integral EAdi)-PTPdi linear correlation during NAVA [median (interquartile range) of r(2), determination of coefficient, 16.2% (1.4-30.9%)]. Conclusion: Compared to PSV, proportional modes favored tidal volume variability. The weak integral EAdi-PTPdi linear relationship during NAVA and poor triggering function during PAV+ may limit the effectiveness of these modes to proportionally assist the inspiratory effort. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.