Wan-Jie Gu1, Fei Wang1, Jing-Chen Liu2. 1. Department of Anesthesiology (Gu, Liu), First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China; Department of Anesthesiology (Wang), General Hospital of Jinan Military Command, Jinan, China. 2. Department of Anesthesiology (Gu, Liu), First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China; Department of Anesthesiology (Wang), General Hospital of Jinan Military Command, Jinan, China. jingchenliu1964@sina.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In anesthetized patients undergoing surgery, the role of lung-protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes is unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of this ventilation strategy on postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We searched electronic databases from inception through September 2014. We included RCTs that compared protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes and conventional ventilation with higher tidal volumes in anesthetized adults undergoing surgery. We pooled outcomes using a random-effects model. The primary outcome measures were lung injury and pulmonary infection. RESULTS: We included 19 trials (n=1348). Compared with patients in the control group, those who received lung-protective ventilation had a decreased risk of lung injury (risk ratio [RR] 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17 to 0.78; I2=0%) and pulmonary infection (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.83; I2=8%), and higher levels of arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (standardized mean difference 0.47, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; I2=65%). No significant differences were observed between the patient groups in atelectasis, mortality, length of hospital stay, length of stay in the intensive care unit or the ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen. INTERPRETATION: Anesthetized patients who received ventilation with lower tidal volumes during surgery had a lower risk of lung injury and pulmonary infection than those given conventional ventilation with higher tidal volumes. Implementation of a lung-protective ventilation strategy with lower tidal volumes may lower the incidence of these outcomes.
BACKGROUND: In anesthetized patients undergoing surgery, the role of lung-protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes is unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of this ventilation strategy on postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We searched electronic databases from inception through September 2014. We included RCTs that compared protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes and conventional ventilation with higher tidal volumes in anesthetized adults undergoing surgery. We pooled outcomes using a random-effects model. The primary outcome measures were lung injury and pulmonary infection. RESULTS: We included 19 trials (n=1348). Compared with patients in the control group, those who received lung-protective ventilation had a decreased risk of lung injury (risk ratio [RR] 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17 to 0.78; I2=0%) and pulmonary infection (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.83; I2=8%), and higher levels of arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (standardized mean difference 0.47, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; I2=65%). No significant differences were observed between the patient groups in atelectasis, mortality, length of hospital stay, length of stay in the intensive care unit or the ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen. INTERPRETATION: Anesthetized patients who received ventilation with lower tidal volumes during surgery had a lower risk of lung injury and pulmonary infection than those given conventional ventilation with higher tidal volumes. Implementation of a lung-protective ventilation strategy with lower tidal volumes may lower the incidence of these outcomes.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: Sugantha Sundar; Victor Novack; Karinne Jervis; S Patrick Bender; Adam Lerner; Peter Panzica; Feroze Mahmood; Atul Malhotra; Daniel Talmor Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Kristian Thorlund; Georgina Imberger; Michael Walsh; Rong Chu; Christian Gluud; Jørn Wetterslev; Gordon Guyatt; Philip J Devereaux; Lehana Thabane Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alexander A Brescia; J Scott Rankin; Derek D Cyr; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Richard L Prager; Min Zhang; Roland A Matsouaka; Steven D Harrington; Rachel S Dokholyan; Steven F Bolling; Astrid Fishstrom; Sara K Pasquali; David M Shahian; Donald S Likosky Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Michael R Mathis; Neal M Duggal; Donald S Likosky; Jonathan W Haft; Nicholas J Douville; Michelle T Vaughn; Michael D Maile; Randal S Blank; Douglas A Colquhoun; Raymond J Strobel; Allison M Janda; Min Zhang; Sachin Kheterpal; Milo C Engoren Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Benjamin Sadowitz; Sumeet Jain; Michaela Kollisch-Singule; Joshua Satalin; Penny Andrews; Nader Habashi; Louis A Gatto; Gary Nieman Journal: World J Crit Care Med Date: 2016-02-04
Authors: A Bagchi; M I Rudolph; P Y Ng; F P Timm; D R Long; S Shaefi; K Ladha; M F Vidal Melo; M Eikermann Journal: Anaesthesia Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 6.955
Authors: Lindsey Barnes; Robert M Reed; Kalpaj R Parekh; Jay K Bhama; Tahuanty Pena; Srinivasan Rajagopal; Gregory A Schmidt; Julia A Klesney-Tait; Michael Eberlein Journal: Curr Pulmonol Rep Date: 2015-04-26
Authors: Gabrielle E Hatton; Patrick J Mollett; Reginald E Du; Shuyan Wei; Radha Korupolu; Charles E Wade; Sasha D Adams; Lillian S Kao Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 1.985