Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2025

Monitoring Lung Function with Electrical Impedance Tomography in the Intensive Care Unit
Published on: September 6, 2024
Bedside personalized methods based on electrical impedance tomography or respiratory mechanics to set PEEP in ARDS
Bertrand Pavlovsky1, Christophe Desprez2, Jean-Christophe Richard2
1Medical Intensive Care Unit, Vent'Lab, Angers University Hospital, University of Angers, 4 Rue Larrey, 49933, Angers Cedex 9, France. bertrand.pavlovsky@gmail.com.
Background:
Various Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) titration strategies have been proposed to optimize ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to compare PEEP titration strategies based on electrical impedance tomography (EIT) to methods derived from respiratory system mechanics with or without esophageal pressure measurements, in terms of PEEP levels and association with recruitability.
Methods:
Nineteen patients with ARDS were enrolled. Recruitability was assessed by the estimated Recruitment-to-Inflation ratio (R/Iest) between PEEP 15 and 5 cmH2O. Then, a decremental PEEP trial from PEEP 20 to 5 cmH2O was performed. PEEP levels determined by the following strategies were studied: (1) plateau pressure 28-30 cmH2O (Express), (2) minimal positive expiratory transpulmonary pressure (Positive PLe), (3) center of ventilation closest to 0.5 (CoV) and (4) intersection of the EIT-based overdistension and lung collapse curves (Crossing Point). In addition, the PEEP levels determined by the Crossing Point strategy were assessed using different PEEP ranges during the decremental PEEP trial.
Results:
Express and CoV strategies led to higher PEEP levels than the Positive PLe and Crossing Point ones (17 [14-17], 20 [17-20], 8 [5-11], 10 [8-11] respectively, p < 0.001). For each strategy, there was no significant association between the optimal PEEP level and R/Iest (Crossing Point: r2 = 0.073, p = 0.263; CoV: r2 < 0.001, p = 0.941; Express: r2 < 0.001, p = 0.920; Positive PLe: r2 = 0.037, p = 0.461). The PEEP level obtained with the Crossing Point strategy was impacted by the PEEP range used during the decremental PEEP trial.
Conclusions:
CoV and Express strategies led to higher PEEP levels than the Crossing Point and Positive PLe strategies. Optimal PEEP levels proposed by these four methods were not associated with recruitability. Recruitability should be specifically assessed in ARDS patients to optimize PEEP titration.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Mechanical Ventilation III: Noninvasive Ventilation
Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation...
Mechanical Ventilation I: Indication and Settings
Ventilatory Modes
There are three ventilatory modes: full support, partial support, and spontaneous. These are described below.
Full Support Modes
Full support modes include controlled mechanical ventilation, continuous mandatory...
Acute Respiratory Failure-V
Ensure that patients are monitored continuously for their response to therapy, including changes in...
Mechanical Ventilation II: Invasive Ventilation
Negative-Pressure Ventilators
Negative-pressure ventilators create a vacuum around the chest or body to draw air into the lungs, simulating breathing. This method does not require an...
Assessment of Ventilation I: Respiratory Rate
A Ventilation assessment is critical for monitoring a patient's health status. Respiration, one of the most accessible vital signs, provides insights into the function of numerous body systems and can indicate serious health issues, such as brainstem injuries from head trauma.
Critical Guidelines for Assessing Ventilation:

