Davide D'Antini1, Robert Huhle2, Jacob Herrmann3, Demet S Sulemanji4,5, Jun Oto4,5, Pasquale Raimondo1, Lucia Mirabella1, Sabrine N T Hemmes6, Marcus J Schultz6, Paolo Pelosi7, David W Kaczka8, Marcos Francisco Vidal Melo4,5, Marcelo Gama de Abreu2, Gilda Cinnella1. 1. From the Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy. 2. Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Pulmonary Engineering Group, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany. 3. Departments of Anesthesia and Biomedical Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 4. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Anesthesia, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Intensive Care and Laboratory for Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology (LEICA), Academic Medical Center at the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 7. Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, IRCCS AOU San Martino IST, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. 8. Departments of Anesthesia, Biomedical Engineering, and Radiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the 2014 PROtective Ventilation using HIgh versus LOw positive end-expiratory pressure (PROVHILO) trial, intraoperative low tidal volume ventilation with high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP = 12 cm H2O) and lung recruitment maneuvers did not decrease postoperative pulmonary complications when compared to low PEEP (0-2 cm H2O) approach without recruitment breaths. However, effects of intraoperative PEEP on lung compliance remain poorly understood. We hypothesized that higher PEEP leads to a dominance of intratidal overdistension, whereas lower PEEP results in intratidal recruitment/derecruitment (R/D). To test our hypothesis, we used the volume-dependent elastance index %E2, a respiratory parameter that allows for noninvasive and radiation-free assessment of dominant overdistension and intratidal R/D. We compared the incidence of intratidal R/D, linear expansion, and overdistension by means of %E2 in a subset of the PROVHILO cohort. METHODS: In 36 patients from 2 participating centers of the PROVHILO trial, we calculated respiratory system elastance (E), resistance (R), and %E2, a surrogate parameter for intratidal overdistension (%E2 > 30%) and R/D (%E2 < 0%). To test the main hypothesis, we compared the incidence of intratidal overdistension (primary end point) and R/D in higher and lower PEEP groups, as measured by %E2. RESULTS:E was increased in the lower compared to higher PEEP group (18.6 [16…22] vs 13.4 [11.0…17.0] cm H2O·L; P < .01). %E2 was reduced in the lower PEEP group compared to higher PEEP (-15.4 [-28.0…6.5] vs 6.2 [-0.8…14.0] %; P < .05). Intratidal R/D was increased in the lower PEEP group (61% vs 22%; P = .037). The incidence of intratidal overdistension did not differ significantly between groups (6%). CONCLUSIONS: During mechanical ventilation with protective tidal volumes in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery, lung recruitment followed by PEEP of 12 cm H2O decreased the incidence of intratidal R/D and did not worsen overdistension, when compared to PEEP ≤2 cm H2O.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In the 2014 PROtective Ventilation using HIgh versus LOw positive end-expiratory pressure (PROVHILO) trial, intraoperative low tidal volume ventilation with high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP = 12 cm H2O) and lung recruitment maneuvers did not decrease postoperative pulmonary complications when compared to low PEEP (0-2 cm H2O) approach without recruitment breaths. However, effects of intraoperative PEEP on lung compliance remain poorly understood. We hypothesized that higher PEEP leads to a dominance of intratidal overdistension, whereas lower PEEP results in intratidal recruitment/derecruitment (R/D). To test our hypothesis, we used the volume-dependent elastance index %E2, a respiratory parameter that allows for noninvasive and radiation-free assessment of dominant overdistension and intratidal R/D. We compared the incidence of intratidal R/D, linear expansion, and overdistension by means of %E2 in a subset of the PROVHILO cohort. METHODS: In 36 patients from 2 participating centers of the PROVHILO trial, we calculated respiratory system elastance (E), resistance (R), and %E2, a surrogate parameter for intratidal overdistension (%E2 > 30%) and R/D (%E2 < 0%). To test the main hypothesis, we compared the incidence of intratidal overdistension (primary end point) and R/D in higher and lower PEEP groups, as measured by %E2. RESULTS: E was increased in the lower compared to higher PEEP group (18.6 [16…22] vs 13.4 [11.0…17.0] cm H2O·L; P < .01). %E2 was reduced in the lower PEEP group compared to higher PEEP (-15.4 [-28.0…6.5] vs 6.2 [-0.8…14.0] %; P < .05). Intratidal R/D was increased in the lower PEEP group (61% vs 22%; P = .037). The incidence of intratidal overdistension did not differ significantly between groups (6%). CONCLUSIONS: During mechanical ventilation with protective tidal volumes in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery, lung recruitment followed by PEEP of 12 cm H2O decreased the incidence of intratidal R/D and did not worsen overdistension, when compared to PEEP ≤2 cm H2O.
Authors: Joao Henrique Neves Soares; Alysson Roncally Carvalho; Bruno Curty Bergamini; Maria Alice Kuster Gress; Frederico Caetano Jandre; Walter Araujo Zin; Antonio Giannella-Neto Journal: Lung Date: 2018-02-12 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: Maurizio Cereda; Yi Xin; Alberto Goffi; Jacob Herrmann; David W Kaczka; Brian P Kavanagh; Gaetano Perchiazzi; Takeshi Yoshida; Rahim R Rizi Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 7.892