Ana Fernandez-Bustamante1, Juraj Sprung2, Robert A Parker3, Karsten Bartels4, Toby N Weingarten2, Carolina Kosour5, B Taylor Thompson6, Marcos F Vidal Melo5. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; Webb-Waring Center, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. Electronic address: Ana.Fernandez-Bustamante@cuanschutz.edu. 2. Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. 5. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Higher intraoperative driving pressures (ΔP) are associated with increased postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC). We hypothesised that dynamic adjustment of PEEP throughout abdominal surgery reduces ΔP, maintains positive end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures (Ptp_ee) and increases respiratory system static compliance (Crs) with PEEP levels that are variable between and within patients. METHODS: In a prospective multicentre pilot study, adults at moderate/high risk for PPC undergoing elective abdominal surgery were randomised to one of three ventilation protocols: (1) PEEP≤2 cm H2O, compared with periodic recruitment manoeuvres followed by individualised PEEP to either optimise respiratory system compliance (PEEPmaxCrs) or maintain positive end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (PEEPPtp_ee). The composite primary outcome included intraoperative ΔP, Ptp_ee, Crs, and PEEP values (median (interquartile range) and coefficients of variation [CVPEEP]). RESULTS:Thirty-seven patients (48.6% female; age range: 47-73 yr) were assigned to control (PEEP≤2 cm H2O; n=13), PEEPmaxCrs (n=16), or PEEPPtp_ee (n=8) groups. The PEEPPtp_ee intervention could not be delivered in two patients. Subjects assigned to PEEPmaxCrs had lower ΔP (median8 cm H2O [7-10]), compared with the control group (12 cm H2O [10-15]; P=0.006). PEEPmaxCrs was also associated with higher Ptp_ee (2.0 cm H2O [-0.7 to 4.5] vs controls: -8.3 cm H2O [-13.0 to -4.0]; P≤0.001) and higher Crs (47.7 ml cm H2O [43.2-68.8] vs controls: 39.0 ml cm H2O [32.9-43.4]; P=0.009). Individualised PEEP (PEEPmaxCrs and PEEPPtp_ee combined) varied widely (median: 10 cm H2O [8-15]; CVPEEP=0.24 [0.14-0.35]), both between, and within, subjects throughout surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that individualised PEEP management strategies applied during abdominal surgery reduce driving pressure, maintain positive Ptp_ee and increase static compliance. The wide range of PEEP observed suggests that an individualised approach is required to optimise respiratory mechanics during abdominal surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02671721.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Higher intraoperative driving pressures (ΔP) are associated with increased postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC). We hypothesised that dynamic adjustment of PEEP throughout abdominal surgery reduces ΔP, maintains positive end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures (Ptp_ee) and increases respiratory system static compliance (Crs) with PEEP levels that are variable between and within patients. METHODS: In a prospective multicentre pilot study, adults at moderate/high risk for PPC undergoing elective abdominal surgery were randomised to one of three ventilation protocols: (1) PEEP≤2 cm H2O, compared with periodic recruitment manoeuvres followed by individualised PEEP to either optimise respiratory system compliance (PEEPmaxCrs) or maintain positive end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (PEEPPtp_ee). The composite primary outcome included intraoperative ΔP, Ptp_ee, Crs, and PEEP values (median (interquartile range) and coefficients of variation [CVPEEP]). RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (48.6% female; age range: 47-73 yr) were assigned to control (PEEP≤2 cm H2O; n=13), PEEPmaxCrs (n=16), or PEEPPtp_ee (n=8) groups. The PEEPPtp_ee intervention could not be delivered in two patients. Subjects assigned to PEEPmaxCrs had lower ΔP (median8 cm H2O [7-10]), compared with the control group (12 cm H2O [10-15]; P=0.006). PEEPmaxCrs was also associated with higher Ptp_ee (2.0 cm H2O [-0.7 to 4.5] vs controls: -8.3 cm H2O [-13.0 to -4.0]; P≤0.001) and higher Crs (47.7 ml cm H2O [43.2-68.8] vs controls: 39.0 ml cm H2O [32.9-43.4]; P=0.009). Individualised PEEP (PEEPmaxCrs and PEEPPtp_ee combined) varied widely (median: 10 cm H2O [8-15]; CVPEEP=0.24 [0.14-0.35]), both between, and within, subjects throughout surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that individualised PEEP management strategies applied during abdominal surgery reduce driving pressure, maintain positive Ptp_ee and increase static compliance. The wide range of PEEP observed suggests that an individualised approach is required to optimise respiratory mechanics during abdominal surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02671721.
Authors: Myrthe A C de Jong; Karim S Ladha; Marcos F Vidal Melo; Anne Kathrine Staehr-Rye; Edward A Bittner; Tobias Kurth; Matthias Eikermann Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Carlos Ferrando; Marina Soro; Carmen Unzueta; Fernando Suarez-Sipmann; Jaume Canet; Julián Librero; Natividad Pozo; Salvador Peiró; Alicia Llombart; Irene León; Inmaculada India; Cesar Aldecoa; Oscar Díaz-Cambronero; David Pestaña; Francisco J Redondo; Ignacio Garutti; Jaume Balust; Jose I García; Maite Ibáñez; Manuel Granell; Aurelio Rodríguez; Lucía Gallego; Manuel de la Matta; Rafael Gonzalez; Andrea Brunelli; Javier García; Lucas Rovira; Francisco Barrios; Vicente Torres; Samuel Hernández; Estefanía Gracia; Marta Giné; María García; Nuria García; Lisset Miguel; Sergio Sánchez; Patricia Piñeiro; Roger Pujol; Santiago García-Del-Valle; José Valdivia; María J Hernández; Oto Padrón; Ana Colás; Jaume Puig; Gonzalo Azparren; Gerardo Tusman; Jesús Villar; Javier Belda Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 30.700
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: D L Grieco; A Russo; B Romanò; G M Anzellotti; P Ciocchetti; F Torrini; R Barelli; D Eleuteri; V Perilli; A M Dell'Anna; F Bongiovanni; L Sollazzi; M Antonelli Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Francesco Mojoli; Giorgio Antonio Iotti; Francesca Torriglia; Marco Pozzi; Carlo Alberto Volta; Stefania Bianzina; Antonio Braschi; Laurent Brochard Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-04-11 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Felix Girrbach; Franziska Zeutzschel; Susann Schulz; Mirko Lange; Alessandro Beda; Antonio Giannella-Neto; Hermann Wrigge; Philipp Simon Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 4.964