Joanne Guay1, Edward A Ochroch, Sandra Kopp. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the 2000s, there has been a trend towards decreasing tidal volumes for positive pressure ventilation during surgery. This an update of a review first published in 2015, trying to determine if lower tidal volumes are beneficial or harmful for patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefit of intraoperative use of low tidal volume ventilation (less than 10 mL/kg of predicted body weight) compared with high tidal volumes (10 mL/kg or greater) to decrease postoperative complications in adults without acute lung injury. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (from 1946 to 19 May 2017), Embase (OvidSP) (from 1974 to 19 May 2017) and six trial registries. We screened the reference lists of all studies retained and of recent meta-analysis related to the topic during data extraction. We also screened conference proceedings of anaesthesiology societies, published in two major anaesthesiology journals. The search was rerun 3 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of low tidal volumes (defined as less than 10 mL/kg) on any of our selected outcomes in adults undergoing any type of surgery. We did not retain studies with participants requiring one-lung ventilation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the quality of the retained studies with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed data with both fixed-effect (I2 statistic less than 25%) or random-effects (I2 statistic greater than 25%) models based on the degree of heterogeneity. When there was an effect, we calculated a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) using the odds ratio. When there was no effect, we calculated the optimum information size. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven new RCTs (536 participants) in the update.In total, we included 19 studies in the review (776 participants in the low tidal volume group and 772 in the high volume group). There are four studies awaiting classification and three are ongoing. All included studies were at some risk of bias. Participants were scheduled for abdominal surgery, heart surgery, pulmonary thromboendarterectomy, spinal surgery and knee surgery. Low tidal volumes used in the studies varied from 6 mL/kg to 8.1 mL/kg while high tidal volumes varied from 10 mL/kg to 12 mL/kg.Based on 12 studies including 1207 participants, the effects of low volume ventilation on 0- to 30-day mortality were uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.53; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Based on seven studies including 778 participants, lower tidal volumes probably reduced postoperative pneumonia (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.82; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB 24, 95% CI 16 to 160), and it probably reduced the need for non-invasive postoperative ventilatory support based on three studies including 506 participants (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.64; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB 13, 95% CI 11 to 24). Based on 11 studies including 957 participants, low tidal volumes during surgery probably decreased the need for postoperative invasive ventilatory support (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.77; I2 = 0%; NNTB 39, 95% CI 30 to 166; moderate-quality evidence). Based on five studies including 898 participants, there may be little or no difference in the intensive care unit length of stay (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.10; I2 = 33%; low-quality evidence). Based on 14 studies including 1297 participants, low tidal volumes may have reduced hospital length of stay by about 0.8 days (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; I2 = 27%; low-quality evidence). Based on five studies including 708 participants, the effects of low volume ventilation on barotrauma (pneumothorax) were uncertain (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.99; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence that low tidal volumes (defined as less than 10 mL/kg) decreases pneumonia and the need for postoperative ventilatory support (invasive and non-invasive). We found no difference in the risk of barotrauma (pneumothorax), but the number of participants included does not allow us to make definitive statement on this. The four studies in 'Studies awaiting classification' may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.
BACKGROUND: Since the 2000s, there has been a trend towards decreasing tidal volumes for positive pressure ventilation during surgery. This an update of a review first published in 2015, trying to determine if lower tidal volumes are beneficial or harmful for patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefit of intraoperative use of low tidal volume ventilation (less than 10 mL/kg of predicted body weight) compared with high tidal volumes (10 mL/kg or greater) to decrease postoperative complications in adults without acute lung injury. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (from 1946 to 19 May 2017), Embase (OvidSP) (from 1974 to 19 May 2017) and six trial registries. We screened the reference lists of all studies retained and of recent meta-analysis related to the topic during data extraction. We also screened conference proceedings of anaesthesiology societies, published in two major anaesthesiology journals. The search was rerun 3 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of low tidal volumes (defined as less than 10 mL/kg) on any of our selected outcomes in adults undergoing any type of surgery. We did not retain studies with participants requiring one-lung ventilation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the quality of the retained studies with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed data with both fixed-effect (I2 statistic less than 25%) or random-effects (I2 statistic greater than 25%) models based on the degree of heterogeneity. When there was an effect, we calculated a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) using the odds ratio. When there was no effect, we calculated the optimum information size. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven new RCTs (536 participants) in the update.In total, we included 19 studies in the review (776 participants in the low tidal volume group and 772 in the high volume group). There are four studies awaiting classification and three are ongoing. All included studies were at some risk of bias. Participants were scheduled for abdominal surgery, heart surgery, pulmonary thromboendarterectomy, spinal surgery and knee surgery. Low tidal volumes used in the studies varied from 6 mL/kg to 8.1 mL/kg while high tidal volumes varied from 10 mL/kg to 12 mL/kg.Based on 12 studies including 1207 participants, the effects of low volume ventilation on 0- to 30-day mortality were uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.53; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Based on seven studies including 778 participants, lower tidal volumes probably reduced postoperative pneumonia (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.82; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB 24, 95% CI 16 to 160), and it probably reduced the need for non-invasive postoperative ventilatory support based on three studies including 506 participants (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.64; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB 13, 95% CI 11 to 24). Based on 11 studies including 957 participants, low tidal volumes during surgery probably decreased the need for postoperative invasive ventilatory support (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.77; I2 = 0%; NNTB 39, 95% CI 30 to 166; moderate-quality evidence). Based on five studies including 898 participants, there may be little or no difference in the intensive care unit length of stay (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.10; I2 = 33%; low-quality evidence). Based on 14 studies including 1297 participants, low tidal volumes may have reduced hospital length of stay by about 0.8 days (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; I2 = 27%; low-quality evidence). Based on five studies including 708 participants, the effects of low volume ventilation on barotrauma (pneumothorax) were uncertain (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.99; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence that low tidal volumes (defined as less than 10 mL/kg) decreases pneumonia and the need for postoperative ventilatory support (invasive and non-invasive). We found no difference in the risk of barotrauma (pneumothorax), but the number of participants included does not allow us to make definitive statement on this. The four studies in 'Studies awaiting classification' may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.
Authors: Ary Serpa Neto; Sabrine N T Hemmes; Carmen S V Barbas; Martin Beiderlinden; Michelle Biehl; Jan M Binnekade; Jaume Canet; Ana Fernandez-Bustamante; Emmanuel Futier; Ognjen Gajic; Göran Hedenstierna; Markus W Hollmann; Samir Jaber; Alf Kozian; Marc Licker; Wen-Qian Lin; Andrew D Maslow; Stavros G Memtsoudis; Dinis Reis Miranda; Pierre Moine; Thomas Ng; Domenico Paparella; Christian Putensen; Marco Ranieri; Federica Scavonetto; Thomas Schilling; Werner Schmid; Gabriele Selmo; Paolo Severgnini; Juraj Sprung; Sugantha Sundar; Daniel Talmor; Tanja Treschan; Carmen Unzueta; Toby N Weingarten; Esther K Wolthuis; Hermann Wrigge; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Paolo Pelosi; Marcus J Schultz Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Hermann Wrigge; Ulrike Uhlig; Georg Baumgarten; Jan Menzenbach; Jörg Zinserling; Martin Ernst; Daniel Drömann; Armin Welz; Stefan Uhlig; Christian Putensen Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-08-17 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: O Akça; A Kurz; E Fleischmann; D Buggy; F Herbst; L Stocchi; S Galandiuk; S Iscoe; J Fisher; C C Apfel; D I Sessler Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: H Wrigge; J Zinserling; F Stüber; T von Spiegel; R Hering; S Wetegrove; A Hoeft; C Putensen Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Rogier M Determann; Esther K Wolthuis; Goda Choi; Paul Bresser; Alfred Bernard; Rene Lutter; Marcus J Schultz Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2007-12-14 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Ana Fernandez-Bustamante; Juraj Sprung; Robert A Parker; Karsten Bartels; Toby N Weingarten; Carolina Kosour; B Taylor Thompson; Marcos F Vidal Melo Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Alessandro R C Martins; Aline M Ambrósio; Denise T Fantoni; Ana Carolina B C F Pinto; Lenin Arturo Villamizar-Martinez; João H N Soares; Denise A Otsuki; Luiz Marcelo S Malbouisson Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Christopher M Bobba; Qinqin Fei; Vasudha Shukla; Hyunwook Lee; Pragi Patel; Rachel K Putman; Carleen Spitzer; MuChun Tsai; Mark D Wewers; Robert J Lee; John W Christman; Megan N Ballinger; Samir N Ghadiali; Joshua A Englert Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Christoph Ellenberger; Paolo Pelosi; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Hermann Wrigge; John Diaper; Andres Hagerman; Yannick Adam; Marcus J Schultz; Marc Licker Journal: Eur J Anaesthesiol Date: 2022-09-12 Impact factor: 4.183
Authors: Anna Wrzosek; Joanna Jakowicka-Wordliczek; Renata Zajaczkowska; Wojciech T Serednicki; Milosz Jankowski; Malgorzata M Bala; Mateusz J Swierz; Maciej Polak; Jerzy Wordliczek Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-12-12