Literature DB >> 24488037

Comparison of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure of 8 versus 5 cm H2O on Outcome After Cardiac Operations.

Jennifer K Hansen1, David G Anthony2, Liang Li3, David Wheeler2, Daniel I Sessler4, C Allen Bashour5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Postoperative positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) selection in patients who are mechanically ventilated after cardiac operations often seems random. The aim of this investigation was to compare the 2 most common postoperative initial PEEP settings at our institution, 8 and 5 cm H2O, on postoperative initial tracheal intubation time (primary outcome); cardiovascular intensive care unit (CVICU); hospital length of stay (LOS); occurrence of pneumonia; and hospital mortality (secondary outcomes).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The electronic medical records of patients who were mechanically ventilated after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or combined CABG and valve operations were reviewed. Propensity score matching was used to compare patients with an initial postoperative PEEP setting of 8 cm H2O (n = 4722 [25.9%]) with those who had PEEP of 5 cm H2O (n = 13 535 [74.1%]) on the primary and secondary outcomes listed earlier.
RESULTS: There was no difference in initial postoperative intubation time between the PEEP of 8 cm H2O and the PEEP of 5 cm H2O patient groups (mean 11.9 vs 12.0 hours [median 8.2 vs 8.8 hours], P = .89). The groups did not differ on the occurrence of pneumonia (0.43% vs 0.60%, P = .25) nor on hospital mortality (0.47% vs 0.43%, P = .76). Aspiration pneumonia occurrence approached a significant difference (0.06% vs 0.21%, P value = .052), as did CVICU LOS (mean: 47.9 vs 49.8 hours [median: 28.5 vs 28.4 hours], P = .057), but were not statistically different. There was a slight but likely clinically unimportant difference in hospital LOS (7.7 vs 7.4 days, PEEP = 8 vs 5, P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Patients being mechanically ventilated after cardiac operations with an initial postoperative PEEP setting of 8 versus 5 cm H2O differed significantly only on hospital LOS but the difference was likely clinically unimportant. Thus, use of 8 cm H2O PEEP in these patients without a clinical indication, although likely not harmful, does not seem beneficial.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PEEP; anesthesia; cardiac surgery; coronary artery bypass grafting; mechanical ventilation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24488037     DOI: 10.1177/0885066613519571

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Intensive Care Med        ISSN: 0885-0666            Impact factor:   3.510


  3 in total

1.  The prophylactic effect of different levels of positive endexpiratory pressure on the incidence rate of atelectasis after cardiac surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Mostafa Setak-Berenjestanaki; Masoumeh Bagheri-Nesami; Afshin Gholipour Baradari; Seyed Nouraddin Mousavinasab; Rahman Ghaffari; Manijeh Darbeheshti
Journal:  Med J Islam Repub Iran       Date:  2018-03-10

2.  Lung-protective mechanical ventilation for patients undergoing abdominal laparoscopic surgeries: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Trung Kien Nguyen; Viet Luong Nguyen; Truong Giang Nguyen; Duc Hanh Mai; Ngoc Quynh Nguyen; The Anh Vu; Anh Nguyet Le; Quang Huy Nguyen; Chi Tue Nguyen; Dang Thu Nguyen
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2021-03-30       Impact factor: 2.217

3.  The effect of intraoperative lung protective ventilation vs conventional ventilation, on postoperative pulmonary complications after cardiopulmonary bypass.

Authors:  Mohammad Mahdi Zamani; Atabak Najafi; Saloomeh Sehat; Zinat Janforooz; Pooya Derakhshan; Faranak Rokhtabnak; Mehrdad Mesbah Kiaee; Alireza Kholdebarin; Masoud Ghorbanlo; Mohammad Hossein Hemadi; Mohammad Reza Ghodraty
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Thorac Res       Date:  2017-12-15
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.