BACKGROUND: Compared with historic ventilation strategies, modern lung-protective ventilation includes lower tidal volumes (VT), lower driving pressures, and application of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). The contributions of each component to an overall intraoperative protective ventilation strategy aimed at reducing postoperative pulmonary complications have neither been adequately resolved, nor comprehensively evaluated within an adult cardiac surgical population. The authors hypothesized that a bundled intraoperative protective ventilation strategy was independently associated with decreased odds of pulmonary complications after cardiac surgery. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, the authors reviewed nonemergent cardiac surgical procedures using cardiopulmonary bypass at a tertiary care academic medical center from 2006 to 2017. The authors tested associations between bundled or component intraoperative protective ventilation strategies (VT below 8 ml/kg ideal body weight, modified driving pressure [peak inspiratory pressure - PEEP] below 16 cm H2O, and PEEP greater than or equal to 5 cm H2O) and postoperative outcomes, adjusting for previously identified risk factors. The primary outcome was a composite pulmonary complication; secondary outcomes included individual pulmonary complications, postoperative mortality, as well as durations of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay. RESULTS: Among 4,694 cases reviewed, 513 (10.9%) experienced pulmonary complications. After adjustment, an intraoperative lung-protective ventilation bundle was associated with decreased pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.75). Via a sensitivity analysis, modified driving pressure below 16 cm H2O was independently associated with decreased pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.66), but VT below 8 ml/kg and PEEP greater than or equal to 5 cm H2O were not. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified an intraoperative lung-protective ventilation bundle as independently associated with pulmonary complications after cardiac surgery. The findings offer insight into components of protective ventilation associated with adverse outcomes and may serve as targets for future prospective interventional studies investigating the impact of specific protective ventilation strategies on postoperative outcomes after cardiac surgery.
BACKGROUND: Compared with historic ventilation strategies, modern lung-protective ventilation includes lower tidal volumes (VT), lower driving pressures, and application of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). The contributions of each component to an overall intraoperative protective ventilation strategy aimed at reducing postoperative pulmonary complications have neither been adequately resolved, nor comprehensively evaluated within an adult cardiac surgical population. The authors hypothesized that a bundled intraoperative protective ventilation strategy was independently associated with decreased odds of pulmonary complications after cardiac surgery. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, the authors reviewed nonemergent cardiac surgical procedures using cardiopulmonary bypass at a tertiary care academic medical center from 2006 to 2017. The authors tested associations between bundled or component intraoperative protective ventilation strategies (VT below 8 ml/kg ideal body weight, modified driving pressure [peak inspiratory pressure - PEEP] below 16 cm H2O, and PEEP greater than or equal to 5 cm H2O) and postoperative outcomes, adjusting for previously identified risk factors. The primary outcome was a composite pulmonary complication; secondary outcomes included individual pulmonary complications, postoperative mortality, as well as durations of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay. RESULTS: Among 4,694 cases reviewed, 513 (10.9%) experienced pulmonary complications. After adjustment, an intraoperative lung-protective ventilation bundle was associated with decreased pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.75). Via a sensitivity analysis, modified driving pressure below 16 cm H2O was independently associated with decreased pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.66), but VT below 8 ml/kg and PEEP greater than or equal to 5 cm H2O were not. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified an intraoperative lung-protective ventilation bundle as independently associated with pulmonary complications after cardiac surgery. The findings offer insight into components of protective ventilation associated with adverse outcomes and may serve as targets for future prospective interventional studies investigating the impact of specific protective ventilation strategies on postoperative outcomes after cardiac surgery.
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: Roy G Brower; Michael A Matthay; Alan Morris; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Arthur Wheeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-05-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marylou Cárdenas-Turanzas; Joe Ensor; Chris Wakefield; Karen Zhang; Susannah Kish Wallace; Kristen J Price; Joseph L Nates Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Ary Serpa Neto; Sabrine N T Hemmes; Carmen S V Barbas; Martin Beiderlinden; Ana Fernandez-Bustamante; Emmanuel Futier; Ognjen Gajic; Mohamed R El-Tahan; Abdulmohsin A Al Ghamdi; Ersin Günay; Samir Jaber; Serdar Kokulu; Alf Kozian; Marc Licker; Wen-Qian Lin; Andrew D Maslow; Stavros G Memtsoudis; Dinis Reis Miranda; Pierre Moine; Thomas Ng; Domenico Paparella; V Marco Ranieri; Federica Scavonetto; Thomas Schilling; Gabriele Selmo; Paolo Severgnini; Juraj Sprung; Sugantha Sundar; Daniel Talmor; Tanja Treschan; Carmen Unzueta; Toby N Weingarten; Esther K Wolthuis; Hermann Wrigge; Marcelo B P Amato; Eduardo L V Costa; Marcelo Gama de Abreu; Paolo Pelosi; Marcus J Schultz Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: David M Shahian; Sean M O'Brien; Giovanni Filardo; Victor A Ferraris; Constance K Haan; Jeffrey B Rich; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Elizabeth R DeLong; Cynthia M Shewan; Rachel S Dokholyan; Eric D Peterson; Fred H Edwards; Richard P Anderson Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Michael R Mathis; Donald S Likosky; Jonathan W Haft; Michael D Maile; Randal S Blank; Douglas A Colquhoun; Allison M Janda; Sachin Kheterpal; Milo C Engoren Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Michael R Mathis; Neal M Duggal; Allison M Janda; Jordan L Fennema; Bo Yang; Francis D Pagani; Michael D Maile; Ryan E Hofer; Elizabeth S Jewell; Milo C Engoren Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Michiel T U Schuijt; Liselotte Hol; Sunny G Nijbroek; Sanchit Ahuja; David van Meenen; Guido Mazzinari; Sabrine Hemmes; Thomas Bluth; Lorenzo Ball; Marcelo Gama-de Abreu; Paolo Pelosi; Marcus J Schultz; Ary Serpa Neto Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2022-04-16
Authors: Hyun Joo Ahn; MiHye Park; Jie Ae Kim; Mikyung Yang; Susie Yoon; Bo Rim Kim; Jae-Hyon Bahk; Young Jun Oh; Eun-Ho Lee Journal: Korean J Anesthesiol Date: 2020-02-26