A new automated method versus continuous positive airway pressure method for measuring pressure-volume curves in patients with acute lung injury

Objective  To compare pressure–volume (P–V) curves obtained with the Galileo ventilator with those obtained with the CPAP method in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Design  Prospective, observational study. Setting  General critical care center. Patients and participants  Patients with ALI/ARDS and receiving mechanical ventilation. Interventions  Pressure–volume curves were obtained in random order with the CPAP technique and with the software PV Tool-2 (Galileo ventilator). Measurements and results  In ten consecutive patients, airway pressure was measured by a pressure transducer and changes in lung volume were measured by respiratory inductive plethysmography. P–V curves were fitted to a sigmoidal equation with a mean R ² of 0.994 ± 0.003. Intraclass correlation coefficients were all >0.75 (P < 0.001 at all pressure levels). Lower (LIP) and upper inflection (UIP), and deflation maximum curvature (PMC) points calculated from the fitted variables showed a good correlation between methods with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.98 (0.92, 0.99), 0.92 (0.69, 0.98), and 0.97 (0.86, 0.98), respectively (P < 0.001 in all cases). Bias and limits of agreement for LIP (0.51 ± 0.95 cmH₂O; −1.36 to 2.38 cmH₂O), UIP (0.53 ± 1.52 cmH₂O; −2.44 to 3.50 cmH₂O), and PMC (−0.62 ± 0.89 cmH₂O; −2.35 to 1.12 cmH₂O) obtained with the two methods in the same patient were clinically acceptable. No adverse effects were observed. Conclusion  The PV Tool-2 built into the Galileo ventilator is equivalent to the CPAP method for tracing static P–V curves of the respiratory system in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.