Biniam Kidane1,2, Stephen Choi3, Dalilah Fortin1,4,5, Turlough O'Hare6, George Nicolaou7, Neal H Badner7, Richard I Inculet1,4, Peter Slinger3, Richard A Malthaner1,4. 1. Department of Surgery, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 3. Department of Anesthesia, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. 5. Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Anesthesia & Perioperative Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited evidence suggests that intraoperative lung-protective ventilation (LPV) during one-lung ventilation (OLV) may reduce respiratory complications after thoracic surgery. Little is known about LPV practices during OLV. Our purpose was to assess the state of practice/perspectives of anesthesiologists regarding LPV during elective OLV. METHODS: We conducted a multi-institutional cross-sectional survey of anesthesiologists performing OLV at high-volume Canadian tertiary/university centers. The survey was designed, refined and distributed by a multi-disciplinary team using the Dillman method. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used. RESULTS: Seventy-five (63%) of 120 eligible respondents completed the survey. Although the critical care literature focuses on minimizing tidal volume (TV) as the central strategy of LPV, most respondents (89%, n=50/56) focused on minimizing peak airway pressure (PAP) as their primary strategy of intraoperative LPV. Only 64% (n=37/58) reported actively trying to minimize TV. While 32% (n=17/54) were unsure about the current evidence regarding LPV, 67% (n=36/54) believed that the evidence favoured their use during OLV. Perceived clinical and institutional barriers were the only predictors of reduced attempts to minimize TV on univariate analyses. In multivariable/adjusted analyses, perceived institutional barriers were the only predictors of reduced attempts to minimize TV with adjusted odds ratio of 0.1 (95% CI: 0.03-0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Most anesthesiologists defined low PAP as the primary strategy of LPV during OLV and attempted to minimize it. This study is the first to assess the practice/perspectives of anesthesiologists regarding LPV during OLV and also the first to explore predictors of LPV use. Randomized trials are currently ongoing. However, this study suggests that institutional barriers may subvert future knowledge translation and need to be addressed.
BACKGROUND: Limited evidence suggests that intraoperative lung-protective ventilation (LPV) during one-lung ventilation (OLV) may reduce respiratory complications after thoracic surgery. Little is known about LPV practices during OLV. Our purpose was to assess the state of practice/perspectives of anesthesiologists regarding LPV during elective OLV. METHODS: We conducted a multi-institutional cross-sectional survey of anesthesiologists performing OLV at high-volume Canadian tertiary/university centers. The survey was designed, refined and distributed by a multi-disciplinary team using the Dillman method. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used. RESULTS: Seventy-five (63%) of 120 eligible respondents completed the survey. Although the critical care literature focuses on minimizing tidal volume (TV) as the central strategy of LPV, most respondents (89%, n=50/56) focused on minimizing peak airway pressure (PAP) as their primary strategy of intraoperative LPV. Only 64% (n=37/58) reported actively trying to minimize TV. While 32% (n=17/54) were unsure about the current evidence regarding LPV, 67% (n=36/54) believed that the evidence favoured their use during OLV. Perceived clinical and institutional barriers were the only predictors of reduced attempts to minimize TV on univariate analyses. In multivariable/adjusted analyses, perceived institutional barriers were the only predictors of reduced attempts to minimize TV with adjusted odds ratio of 0.1 (95% CI: 0.03-0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Most anesthesiologists defined low PAP as the primary strategy of LPV during OLV and attempted to minimize it. This study is the first to assess the practice/perspectives of anesthesiologists regarding LPV during OLV and also the first to explore predictors of LPV use. Randomized trials are currently ongoing. However, this study suggests that institutional barriers may subvert future knowledge translation and need to be addressed.
Authors: Karen E A Burns; Mark Duffett; Michelle E Kho; Maureen O Meade; Neill K J Adhikari; Tasnim Sinuff; Deborah J Cook Journal: CMAJ Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Matthias Briel; Maureen Meade; Alain Mercat; Roy G Brower; Daniel Talmor; Stephen D Walter; Arthur S Slutsky; Eleanor Pullenayegum; Qi Zhou; Deborah Cook; Laurent Brochard; Jean-Christophe M Richard; Francois Lamontagne; Neera Bhatnagar; Thomas E Stewart; Gordon Guyatt Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marc Licker; John Diaper; Yann Villiger; Anastase Spiliopoulos; Virginie Licker; John Robert; Jean-Marie Tschopp Journal: Crit Care Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Savino Spadaro; Salvatore Grasso; Dan Stieper Karbing; Giuseppe Santoro; Giorgio Cavallesco; Pio Maniscalco; Francesca Murgolo; Rosa Di Mussi; Riccardo Ragazzi; Stephen Edward Rees; Carlo Alberto Volta; Alberto Fogagnolo Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Douglas A Colquhoun; Aleda M Leis; Amy M Shanks; Michael R Mathis; Bhiken I Naik; Marcel E Durieux; Sachin Kheterpal; Nathan L Pace; Wanda M Popescu; Robert B Schonberger; Benjamin D Kozower; Dustin M Walters; Justin D Blasberg; Andrew C Chang; Michael F Aziz; Izumi Harukuni; Brandon H Tieu; Randal S Blank Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 7.892