Pulse Wave vs. Saline Contrast EIT for Pulmonary Perfusion in ARDS

Condition(s) studied

Study summary

Monitoring pulmonary perfusion is crucial in critical care, especially for conditions like ARDS. Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) is a valuable, non-invasive tool for real-time bedside monitoring.While well-established for lung ventilation, EIT faces a challenge in perfusion imaging because the related impedance signal is very weak. Currently, two main methods are used:Saline Bolus EIT: Involves injecting a saline solution during a breath-hold to track blood flow.Pulse Wave EIT: Utilizes cardiac-induced vascular pulsations to assess perfusion.However, both methods have limitations in ARDS patients, as the disease's altered physiology can affect their accuracy.

This study compares pulse wave versus saline bolus EIT for pulmonary perfusion assessment in ARDS patients and investigates the impact of different PEEP levels.

Eligibility

Primary outcome measure(s)

• Pulmonary perfusion was assessed using both pulse wave and saline bolus EIT at PEEP levels of 5 and 15 cmH₂O. — Under both PEEP 5 cmH₂O and PEEP 15 cmH₂O conditions, EIT data were acquired after 30 minutes of stable ventilation.
  At a PEEP of 5 cmH₂O, pulse wave EIT data were recorded for 3 minutes. Subsequently, during an inspiratory or expiratory hold, a 10 mL bolus of 10% hypertonic saline was administered via the central venous catheter while EIT data were simultaneously recorded for another 3 minutes. This procedure was repeated at a PEEP of 15 cmH₂O. Pulmonary perfusion data were obtained through offline analysis of the EIT data.

Trial sites (1)

More Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology trials in China

Other trials for the same condition