Comparative analysis of novel esophageal pressure monitoring catheters versus commercially available alternatives in a biomechanical model of the thoracic cavity

Abstract

AbstractTranspulmonary pressure can be estimated using esophageal balloon (EB) catheters, which come in a variety of manufacturing configurations. We assessed the performance of novel polyurethane EB designs, Aspisafe NG and NG+, against existing alternatives. We created a biomechanical model of the chest cavity using a plastic chamber and an ex-vivo porcine esophagus. The chamber was pressurized (− 20 and + 20 cmH2O) to simulate pleural pressures. We conducted tests with various EB inflation volumes and measured transesophageal pressure (TEP). TEP measurement was defined as accurate when the difference between pressure within the EB and chamber was 0 ± 1 cmH2O. We computed the minimal (Vaccuracy-min) and maximal (Vaccuracy-max) EB inflation volumes of accuracy. Inflation volumes were further validated using a surrogate method derived by the clinically validated positive pressure occlusion test (PPOT). When the esophageal balloons were filled with inflation volumes within the range provided by the manufacturers, the accuracy of TEP measurements was marginal. Our tests found median Vaccuracy-min across EB of 0.00–0.50 mL (p = 0.130), whereas Vaccuracy-max ranged 0.50–2.25 mL (p = 0.002). Post PPOT validation, median TEP was − 0.4 cmH2O (− 1.5 to 0.3) (p < 0.001 among catheters). The Aspisafe NG and NG+ were accurate in 81.7% and 77.8% of the measurements, respectively. We characterized two new EBs, which demonstrated good benchtop accuracy in TEP measurements. However, accuracy was notably influenced by the precise selection of EB inflation volumes.