|
1
|
Zhang NR, Zhang LZ, Chen Y, Zhang S, Li S, Gu XK, Li J, Li H. Intraoperative protective ventilation with or without periodic lung recruitment manoeuvres on pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery (REMAIN-1): protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2025; 15:e093360. [PMID: 40082005 PMCID: PMC11906986 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-093360] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2024] [Accepted: 02/24/2025] [Indexed: 03/16/2025] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are frequent after abdominal surgery and significantly affect postoperative outcomes. Intraoperative protective ventilation (IPV) has been demonstrated to mitigate PPCs. However, the comparative effectiveness of two common IPV regimens-IPV with or without periodic lung recruitment manoeuvres (PLRM)-in preventing PPCs is unclear. This study aims to compare the effects of these two IPV regimens on PPCs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS This study is a prospective, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial. A total of 1060 patients at intermediate or high risk for PPCs, scheduled to undergo major abdominal surgery, will be enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either an IPV with PLRM (intensive IPV group) or an IPV without PLRM (moderate IPV group). Patients assigned to the intensive IPV group will receive positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 6-10 cm H2O with lung recruitment manoeuvres performed every 30 min. Patients in the moderate IPV group will receive the same level of PEEP without lung recruitment manoeuvres. Both groups will receive a tidal volume of 7 mL/kg predicted body weight and an inspired oxygen fraction of 0.3-0.4. The primary outcome is respiratory failure within the first 7 postoperative days. Secondary outcomes include other PPCs, extrapulmonary complications, unplanned admissions to the intensive care unit, length of postoperative hospital stay and mortality from any cause. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. The first participant was recruited on 9 October 2022, with an estimated completion date of 30 May 2025. The results of this trial are expected to be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT05556174.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nan-Rong Zhang
- Department of Anaesthesia, Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- Biomedical Innovation Centre, Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Li-Zhen Zhang
- Department of Anaesthesia, Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- Biomedical Innovation Centre, Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Yi Chen
- Department of Anaesthesia, Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- Biomedical Innovation Centre, Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Song Zhang
- Department of Anaesthesia, Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Shan Li
- Department of Anaesthesia, Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Xiao-Ke Gu
- Department of Anaesthesia, Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Jing Li
- Department of Anaesthesia, Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- Biomedical Innovation Centre, Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Hong Li
- Department of Anaesthesia, Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- Biomedical Innovation Centre, Sun Yat-sen University Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Laguna G, Suárez-Sipmann F, Tusman G, Ripollés J, Díaz-Cambronero O, Pujol R, Rivas E, Garutti I, Mellado R, Vallverdú J, Jacas A, Fervienza A, Marrero R, Librero J, Villar J, Ferrando C. Rationale and study design for an Individualized PeriopeRative Open lung VEntilatory approach in Emergency Abdominal Laparotomy/scopy: study protocol for a prospective international randomized controlled trial. REVISTA ESPANOLA DE ANESTESIOLOGIA Y REANIMACION 2024; 71:445-453. [PMID: 38636796 DOI: 10.1016/j.redare.2024.04.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2023] [Accepted: 11/16/2023] [Indexed: 04/20/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) are the most frequent postoperative complications, with an estimated prevalence in elective surgery ranging from 20% in observational cohort studies to 40% in randomized clinical trials. However, the prevalence of PPCs in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery is not well defined. Lung-protective ventilation aims to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury and reduce PPCs. The open lung approach (OLA), which combines recruitment manoeuvres (RM) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration, aims to minimize areas of atelectasis and the development of PPCs; however, there is no conclusive evidence in the literature that OLA can prevent PPCs. The purpose of this study is to compare an individualized perioperative OLA with conventional standardized lung-protective ventilation in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery with clinical signs of intraoperative lung collapse. METHODS Randomized international clinical trial to compare an individualized perioperative OLA (RM plus individualized PEEP and individualized postoperative respiratory support) with conventional lung-protective ventilation (standard PEEP of 5 cmH2O and conventional postoperative oxygen therapy) in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery with clinical signs of lung collapse. Patients will be randomised to open-label parallel groups. The primary outcome is any severe PPC during the first 7 postoperative days, including: acute respiratory failure, pneumothorax, weaning failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and pulmonary infection. The estimated sample size is 732 patients (366 per group). The final sample size will be readjusted during the interim analysis. DISCUSSION The Individualized Perioperative Open-lung Ventilatory Strategy in emergency abdominal laparotomy (iPROVE-EAL) is the first multicentre, randomized, controlled trial to investigate whether an individualized perioperative approach prevents PPCs in patients undergoing emergency surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Laguna
- Departamento de Anestesia y Cuidados Críticos, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, España.
| | - F Suárez-Sipmann
- Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, España; CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, España
| | - G Tusman
- Departamento de Anestesia, Hospital Privado de Comunidad, Mar de Plata, Argentina
| | - J Ripollés
- Departamento de Anestesia, Hospital Infanta Leonor, Madrid, España
| | | | - R Pujol
- Departamento de Anestesia y Cuidados Críticos, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, España
| | - E Rivas
- Departamento de Anestesia y Cuidados Críticos, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, España
| | - I Garutti
- Departamento de Anestesia, Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, España
| | - R Mellado
- Departamento de Anestesia y Cuidados Críticos, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, España
| | - J Vallverdú
- Departamento de Anestesia y Cuidados Críticos, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, España
| | - A Jacas
- Departamento de Anestesia y Cuidados Críticos, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, España
| | - A Fervienza
- Departamento de Anestesia y Cuidados Críticos, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, España
| | - R Marrero
- Departamento de Anestesia y Cuidados Críticos, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, España
| | - J Librero
- Navarrabiomed-Fundación Miguel Servet, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Pamplona, España
| | - J Villar
- CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, España; Red Multidisciplinar de Investigación en Evaluación de Disfunción de Órganos, Unidad de Investigación, Hospital Universitario Dr. Negrín, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, España
| | - C Ferrando
- CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, España; Departamento de Anestesia y Cuidados Críticos, Hospital Clínic, Institut D'Investigació August Pi i Sunyer, Barcelona, España
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Pagel JML, Reddy A, Fitzgerald L, Tiouririne M, McGarey PO, Quinn DB, Daniero JJ. The Effect of Laser-Resistant Endotracheal Tube Design on Airflow Dynamics: A Benchtop and Clinical Study. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2024:34894241238861. [PMID: 38491861 DOI: 10.1177/00034894241238861] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/18/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Compare ventilation pressures of 2 endotracheal tube designs used in laser airway surgery in clinical practice and with a benchtop model to elucidate differences and understand the design elements that impact airflow dynamics. METHODS Ventilatory and aerodynamic characteristics of the laser resistant stainless-steel endotracheal tube (LRSS-ET) design and the laser resistant aluminum-wrapped silicone endotracheal tube (LRAS-ET) design were compared. Ventilatory parameters were collected for 32 patients undergoing laser-assisted airway surgery through retrospective chart review. An in vitro benchtop simulation measured average resistance and centerline turbulence intensity of both designs at various diameters and physiological frequencies. RESULTS Baseline patient characteristics did not differ between the 2 groups. Clinically, the median LRAS-ET peak inspiratory pressure (PIP; 21.00 cm H2O) was significantly decreased compared to LRSS-ET PIP (34.67 cm H2O). In benchtop simulation, the average PIP of the LRAS-ET was significantly lower at all sizes and frequencies. The LRSS-ET consistently demonstrated an increased resistance, although no patterns were observed in turbulence intensity data between both designs. CONCLUSION The benchtop model demonstrated increased resistance in the LRSS-ET compared to the LRAS-ET at all comparable sizes. This finding is supported by retrospective ventilatory pressures during laser airway surgery, which show significantly increased PIPs when comparing identically sized inner diameters. Given the equivocal turbulence intensity data, these differences in resistance and pressures are likely caused by wall roughness and intraluminal presence of tubing, not inlet or outlet geometries. The decreased PIPs of the LRAS-ET should assist in following lung protective ventilator management strategies and reduce risk of pulmonary injury and hemodynamic instability to the patient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica M L Pagel
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| | - Adithya Reddy
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| | - Lucy Fitzgerald
- Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| | - Mohamed Tiouririne
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| | - Patrick O McGarey
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| | - Daniel B Quinn
- Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
- Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| | - James J Daniero
- Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Scott MJ, Aggarwal G, Aitken RJ, Anderson ID, Balfour A, Foss NB, Cooper Z, Dhesi JK, French WB, Grant MC, Hammarqvist F, Hare SP, Havens JM, Holena DN, Hübner M, Johnston C, Kim JS, Lees NP, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN, Mohseni S, Ordoñez CA, Quiney N, Sharoky C, Urman RD, Wick E, Wu CL, Young-Fadok T, Peden CJ. Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS ®) Society Recommendations Part 2-Emergency Laparotomy: Intra- and Postoperative Care. World J Surg 2023; 47:1850-1880. [PMID: 37277507 PMCID: PMC10241558 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-023-07020-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/28/2023] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care. METHODS Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL. RESULTS Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process. CONCLUSIONS These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael J. Scott
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Leonard Davis Institute for Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
- University College London, London, UK
| | - Geeta Aggarwal
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey UK
| | - Robert J. Aitken
- Sir Charles Gardiner Hospital, Hospital Avenue, Nedlands, WA 6009 Australia
| | - Iain D. Anderson
- Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Stott La, Salford, M6 8HD UK
- University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Angie Balfour
- Western General Hospital, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU Scotland
| | | | - Zara Cooper
- Harvard Medical School, Kessler Director, Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Division of Trauma, Burns, Surgical Critical Care, and Emergency Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02120 USA
| | - Jugdeep K. Dhesi
- School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, King’s College London, London, UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - W. Brenton French
- Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, 1200 E. Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23298 USA
| | - Michael C. Grant
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA
| | - Folke Hammarqvist
- Department of Emergency and Trauma Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, CLINTEC, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Hälsovägen 3. B85, 141 86 Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Sarah P. Hare
- Department of Anaesthesia, Perioperative Medicine and Critical Care, Medway Maritime Hospital, Windmill Road, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 5NY UK
| | - Joaquim M. Havens
- Division of Trauma, Burns and Surgical Critical Care, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115 USA
| | - Daniel N. Holena
- Division of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd, Milwaukee, WI 53226 USA
| | - Martin Hübner
- Department of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Carolyn Johnston
- Department of Anesthesia, St George’s Hospital, Tooting, London, UK
| | - Jeniffer S. Kim
- Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Research, Pasadena, CA 9110 USA
| | - Nicholas P. Lees
- Department of General and Colorectal Surgery, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Scott La, Salford, M6 8HD UK
| | - Olle Ljungqvist
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health and Medical Sciences, Department of Surgery, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
| | - Dileep N. Lobo
- Gastrointestinal Surgery, Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals and University of Nottingham, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH UK
- MRC Versus Arthritis Centre for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH UK
| | - Shahin Mohseni
- Division of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, Department of Surgery, Orebro University Hospital and School of Medical Sciences, Orebro University, 701 85 Orebro, Sweden
| | - Carlos A. Ordoñez
- Division of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Fundación Valle del Lili, Cra 98 No. 18 – 49, 760032 Cali, Colombia
- Sección de Cirugía de Trauma y Emergencias, Universidad del Valle – Hospital Universitario del Valle, Cl 5 No. 36-08, 760032 Cali, Colombia
| | - Nial Quiney
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Egerton Road, Guildford, Surrey, GU5 7XX UK
| | - Catherine Sharoky
- Division of Traumatology, Surgical Critical Care and Emergency Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
| | - Richard D. Urman
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Ohio State University and Wexner Medical Center, 410 West 10Th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
| | - Elizabeth Wick
- Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Ave HSW1601, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
| | - Christopher L. Wu
- Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine-Hospital for Special Surgery, Department of Anesthesiology-Weill Cornell Medicine, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 USA
| | - Tonia Young-Fadok
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 e. Mayo Blvd., Phoenix, AZ 85054 USA
| | - Carol J. Peden
- Department of Anesthesiology Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2020 Zonal Avenue IRD 322, Los Angeles, CA 90033 USA
- Department of Anesthesiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Zhang NR, Zheng ZN, Wang K, Li H. Incidence, characteristics and risk factors for alveolar recruitment maneuver-related hypotension in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. World J Gastrointest Surg 2023; 15:1454-1464. [PMID: 37555120 PMCID: PMC10405128 DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i7.1454] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2023] [Revised: 05/09/2023] [Accepted: 05/31/2023] [Indexed: 07/21/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Alveolar recruitment maneuvers (ARMs) may lead to transient hypotension, but the clinical characteristics of this induced hypotension are poorly understood. We investigated the characteristics of ARM-related hypotension in patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. AIM To investigate the characteristics of ARM-related hypotension in patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection. METHODS This was a secondary analysis of the PROtective Ventilation using Open Lung approach Or Not trial and included 140 subjects. An ARM was repeated every 30 min during intraoperative mechanical ventilation. The primary endpoint was ARM-related hypotension, defined as a mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 60 mmHg during an ARM or within 5 min after an ARM. The risk factors for hypotension were identified. The peri-ARM changes in blood pressure were analyzed for the first three ARMs (ARM1,2,3) and the last ARM (ARMlast). RESULTS Thirty-four subjects (24.3%) developed ARM-related hypotension. Of all 1027 ARMs, 37 (3.61%) induced hypotension. More ARMs under nonpneumoperitoneum (33/349, 9.46%) than under pneumoperitoneum conditions (4/678, 0.59%) induced hypotension (P < 0.01). The incidence of hypotension was higher at ARM1 points than at non-ARM1 points (18/135, 13.3% vs 19/892, 2.1%; P < 0.01). The median percentage decrease in the MAP at ARM1 was 14%. Age ≥ 74 years, blood loss ≥ 150 mL and peak inspiratory pressure under pneumoperitoneum < 24 cm H2O were risk factors for ARM-related hypotension. CONCLUSION When the ARM was repeated intraoperatively, a quarter of subjects developed ARM-related hypotension, but only 3.61% of ARMs induced hypotension. ARM-related hypotension most occurred in a hemodynamically unstable state or a hypovolemic state, and in elderly subjects. Fortunately, ARMs that were performed under pneumoperitoneum conditions had less impact on blood pressure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nan-Rong Zhang
- Department of Anesthesia, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China
| | - Zhi-Nan Zheng
- Department of Anesthesia, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China
| | - Kai Wang
- Department of Anesthesia, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China
- Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Diseases, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China
| | - Hong Li
- Department of Anesthesia, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China
- Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Colorectal and Pelvic Floor Diseases, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510655, Guangdong Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Abstract
Acute respiratory failure occurs when the lungs fail to oxygenate arterial blood adequately and it is one of the commonest postoperative complications. The preoperative identification of risk factors for postoperative acute respiratory failure allows identification of those patients who may benefit from preoperative optimization and increased postoperative vigilance. Multiple postoperative pulmonary complications are associated with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and this chapter discusses atelectasis, pulmonary embolism, aspiration, and acute respiratory distress syndrome in detail, as well as providing a unified clinical approach to the acutely hypoxemic perioperative patient.
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Li H, Zheng ZN, Zhang NR, Guo J, Wang K, Wang W, Li LG, Jin J, Tang J, Liao YJ, Jin SQ. Intra-operative open-lung ventilatory strategy reduces postoperative complications after laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2021; 38:1042-1051. [PMID: 34366425 PMCID: PMC8452317 DOI: 10.1097/eja.0000000000001580] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and lung recruitment manoeuvre (LRM) combination (termed open-lung strategy, OLS) during intra-operative mechanical ventilation is not clear. OBJECTIVE To determine whether an open-lung strategy constituting medium PEEP (6-8 cmH2O) and repeated LRMs protects against postoperative complications in at-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection under low-tidal-volume ventilation. DESIGN A prospective, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING Single university-affiliated hospital, conducted from January 2017 to October 2018. PATIENTS A total of 280 patients at risk of pulmonary complications, scheduled for laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection under general anaesthesia and low-tidal-volume (6-8 ml kg-1 predicted body weight) ventilation. INTERVENTION The patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to a PEEP of 6-8 cmH2O with LRMs repeated every 30 min (OLS group) or a zero PEEP without LRMs (non-OLS group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was a composite of major pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications occurring within 7 days after surgery. The secondary outcomes included intra-operative potentially harmful hypotension and the need for vasopressors. RESULTS A total of 130 patients from each group were included in the primary outcome analysis. Primary outcome events occurred in 24 patients (18.5%) in the OLS group and 43 patients (33.1%) in the non-OLS group [relative risk, 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.26 to 0.82; P = 0.009). More patients in the OLS group developed potentially harmful hypotension (OLS vs. non-OLS, 15% vs. 4.3%; P = 0.004) and needed vasopressors (25% vs. 8.6%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Among at-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection under low-tidal-volume ventilation, an open-lung strategy with a PEEP of 6-8 cmH2O and repeated LRMs reduced postoperative complications compared with a strategy using zero PEEP without LRMs. Of note, LRMs should be used with caution in patients with haemodynamic instability. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03160144.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hong Li
- From the Department of Anaesthesia, the Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, China (HL, Z-NZ, N-RZ, JG, KW, WW, L-GL, JJ, JT, Y-JL, S-QJ)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Briggs C, Melia D. Lung-protective ventilation vs conventional ventilation in emergency surgery. Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 2021; 82:1-2. [PMID: 33792395 DOI: 10.12968/hmed.2020.0620] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Lung-protective ventilation significantly reduces mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, but do the advantages of this approach transfer from the intensive care unit to the operating room?
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Odor PM, Bampoe S, Gilhooly D, Creagh-Brown B, Moonesinghe SR. Perioperative interventions for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2020; 368:m540. [PMID: 32161042 PMCID: PMC7190038 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 111] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence on the efficacy of perioperative interventions to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES Medline, Embase, CINHAL, and CENTRAL from January 1990 to December 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials investigating short term, protocolised medical interventions conducted before, during, or after non-cardiac surgery were included. Trials with clinical diagnostic criteria for PPC outcomes were included. Studies of surgical technique or physiological or biochemical outcomes were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of evidence. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Quality of evidence was summarised in accordance with GRADE methods. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPCs. Secondary outcomes were respiratory infection, atelectasis, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Trial sequential analysis was used to investigate the reliability and conclusiveness of available evidence. Adverse effects of interventions were not measured or compared. RESULTS 117 trials enrolled 21 940 participants, investigating 11 categories of intervention. 95 randomised controlled trials enrolling 18 062 participants were included in meta-analysis; 22 trials were excluded from meta-analysis because the interventions were not sufficiently similar to be pooled. No high quality evidence was found for interventions to reduce the primary outcome (incidence of PPCs). Seven interventions had low or moderate quality evidence with confidence intervals indicating a probable reduction in PPCs: enhanced recovery pathways (risk ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.58), prophylactic mucolytics (0.40, 0.23 to 0.67), postoperative continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (0.49, 0.24 to 0.99), lung protective intraoperative ventilation (0.52, 0.30 to 0.88), prophylactic respiratory physiotherapy (0.55, 0.32 to 0.93), epidural analgesia (0.77, 0.65 to 0.92), and goal directed haemodynamic therapy (0.87, 0.77 to 0.98). Moderate quality evidence showed no benefit for incentive spirometry in preventing PPCs. Trial sequential analysis adjustment confidently supported a relative risk reduction of 25% in PPCs for prophylactic respiratory physiotherapy, epidural analgesia, enhanced recovery pathways, and goal directed haemodynamic therapies. Insufficient data were available to support or refute equivalent relative risk reductions for other interventions. CONCLUSIONS Predominantly low quality evidence favours multiple perioperative PPC reduction strategies. Clinicians may choose to reassess their perioperative care pathways, but the results indicate that new trials with a low risk of bias are needed to obtain conclusive evidence of efficacy for many of these interventions. STUDY REGISTRATION Prospero CRD42016035662.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter M Odor
- Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, University College Hospital, London, UK
| | - Sohail Bampoe
- Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, University College Hospital, London, UK
| | - David Gilhooly
- Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, University College Hospital, London, UK
| | - Benedict Creagh-Brown
- Surrey Perioperative Anaesthesia Critical care collaborative Research (SPACeR) Group, Intensive Care Unit, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| | - S Ramani Moonesinghe
- Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, University College Hospital, London, UK
- UCL/UCLH Surgical Outcomes Research Centre, UCL Centre for Perioperative Medicine, Research Department for Targeted Intervention, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Broberg E, Pierre L, Fakhro M, Algotsson L, Malmsjö M, Hyllén S, Lindstedt S. Different particle flow patterns from the airways after recruitment manoeuvres using volume-controlled or pressure-controlled ventilation. Intensive Care Med Exp 2019; 7:16. [PMID: 30868309 PMCID: PMC6419649 DOI: 10.1186/s40635-019-0231-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2018] [Accepted: 03/03/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Objectives Noninvasive online monitoring of different particle flows from the airways may serve as an additional tool to assess mechanical ventilation. In the present study, we used a customised PExA, an optical particle counter for monitoring particle flow and size distribution in exhaled air, to analyse airway particle flow for three subsequent days. We compared volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) and performed recruitment manoeuvres (RM). Methods Six animals were randomised into two groups: half received VCV before PCV and the other half received PCV before VCV. Measurements were taken daily for 1 h in each mode during three subsequent days in six fully anaesthetised domestic pigs. A RM was performed twice daily for 60 s at positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 10, 4 breaths/min and inspiratory-expiratory ratio (I:E) of 2:1. Measurements were taken for 3 min before the RM, 1 min during the RM and for 3 min after the RM. The particle sizes measured were between 0.48 and 3.37 μm. Results A significant stepwise decrease was observed in total particle count from day 1 to day 3, and at the same time, an increase in fluid levels was seen. Comparing VCV to PCV, a significant increase in total particle count was observed on day 2, with the highest particle count occurring during VCV. A significant increase was observed comparing before and after RM on day 1 and 2 but not on day 3. One animal developed ARDS and showed a different particle pattern compared to the other animals. Conclusions This study shows the safety and useability of the PExA technique used in conjunction with mechanical ventilation. We detected differences between the ventilation modes VCV and PCV in total particle count without any significant changes in ventilator pressure levels, FiO2 levels or the animals’ vital parameters. The findings during RM indicate an opening of the small airways, but the effect is short lived. We have also showed that VCV and PCV may affect the lung physiology differently during recruitment manoeuvres. These findings might indicate that this technique may provide more refined information on the impact of mechanical ventilation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ellen Broberg
- Department of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Leif Pierre
- Department of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Mohammed Fakhro
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Transplantation, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Lars Algotsson
- Department of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Malin Malmsjö
- Department of Ophthalmology, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Snejana Hyllén
- Department of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Sandra Lindstedt
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Transplantation, Skane University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. .,Wallenberg Center for Molecular Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
| |
Collapse
|