| Literature DB >> 36093886 |
Christoph Ellenberger1, Paolo Pelosi, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Hermann Wrigge, John Diaper, Andres Hagerman, Yannick Adam, Marcus J Schultz, Marc Licker.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intra-operative ventilation using low/physiological tidal volume and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with periodic alveolar recruitment manoeuvres (ARMs) is recommended in obese surgery patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36093886 PMCID: PMC9553219 DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001741
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Anaesthesiol ISSN: 0265-0215 Impact factor: 4.183
Fig. 1CONSORT flow diagram.
Pre-operative patient characteristics and intra-operative surgical data
| Low PEEP | High PEEP | ||
| Variable | ( | ( | STD |
| Demographics | |||
| Age, years | 45.4 ± 10.6 | 45.5 ± 11.4 | −0.01134 |
| Male, % | 20 (25.3) | 25 (30.1) | 0.10748 |
| BMI, kg m-2 | 43.5 ± 6.9 | 44.4 ± 8.0 | −0.11999 |
| Scores | |||
| ARISCAT Score | 43.6 ± 5.9 | 43.0 ± 6.5 | 0.10771 |
| Waist-to-hip ratio | 1.03 ± 0.10 | 1.02 ± 0.08 | 0.14444 |
| ASA-PS classes III and IV | 26 (32.9) | 30 (36.1) | 0.06804 |
| Comorbidities, % | |||
| Hypertension | 68 (86.1) | 72 (86.7) | 0.01958 |
| Obstructive sleep apnoea | 42 (53.2) | 49 (59.0) | 0.11852 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 1 (1.3) | 4 (4.8) | 0.20801 |
| Use of non-invasive ventilatory support | 28 (35.4) | 32 (38.6) | 0.06447 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 18 (22.8) | 21 (25.3) | 0.05891 |
| Gastroesophageal reflux | 69 (87.3) | 72 (86.7) | 0.01771 |
| Alcohol intake > 20 gday-1 | 9 (11.4) | 10 (12.0) | 0.02039 |
| Pre-operative laboratory tests | |||
| Haemoglobin, g dl-1 | 13.7 ± 1.4 | 13.5 ± 1.5 | 0.16404 |
| Creatinine, mcm dl-1 | 68 [60 to 82] | 65 [57 to 75] | −0.26057 |
| Type of anaesthesia, % | |||
| Balanced general anaesthesia | 77 (97.5) | 82 (98.8) | 0.09811 |
| Thoracic epidural analgesia | 2 (2.5) | 1 (1.2) | 0.09811 |
| Patient position | |||
| Head up | 74 (93.7) | 74 (89.2) | 0.16166 |
| Head down | 1 (1.3) | 4 (4.8) | 0.20801 |
| Supine position | 4 (5.1) | 5 (6.0) | 0.04200 |
| Surgical approach, % | |||
| Open surgery | 4 (5.1) | 0 (0.0) | 0.32660 |
| Laparoscopic surgery | 45 (57.0) | 50 (60.2) | 0.06661 |
| Robotic surgery | 30 (38.0) | 33 (39.8) | 0.03661 |
| Intra-abdominal pressure, mmHga | 14.7 ± 1.0 | 14.8 ± 0.7 | −0.11704 |
| Temperature at end of surgery, °C | 36.9 ± 0.2 | 36.8 ± 0.2 | 0.05587 |
| Duration of anaesthesia, min | 309.5 ± 56.6 | 327.5 ± 78.1 | −0.26442 |
| Duration of surgery, min | 229.6 ± 57.7 | 239.7 ± 72.3 | −0.15300 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation, number (percentage) or median [interquartile range].
ARISCAT, Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia; ASA-PS, American Society Association Physical status; SpO2, pulse oximetry; STD, standardised difference.
If laparoscopic or robotic surgery.
Fig. 2Effect of intra-operative high positive end-expiratory pressure with recruitment manoeuvres vs. low PEEP on ventilation of the dependent lung part in obese patients.
Fig. 3Effect of intra-operative high positive end-expiratory pressure with recruitment manoeuvres vs. low PEEP on the ratio of pulsed-oxygen saturation (SaO2)/fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) in obese patients.
Effect of high positive end-expiratory pressure with recruitment manoeuvres vs. low positive end-expiratory pressure on respiratory parameters in obese patients
| Low PEEP | High PEEP | High PEEP | ||
| Variable | ( | ( | End recruitment |
|
| Tidal volume ml kg-1 PBW-1 | ||||
| Post induction | 7.2 ± 0.9 | 7.3 ± 0.8 | 14.2 ± 2.4 | 0.824 |
| 60 min | 7.2 ± 0.9 | 7.3 ± 0.8 | 14.5 ± 2.4 | 0.616 |
| 120 min | 7.2 ± 0.9 | 7.2 ± 0.8 | 14.3 ± 2.5 | 0.840 |
| 180 min | 7.3 ± 0.9 | 7.4 ± 0.9 | 13.9 ± 3.0 | 0.462 |
| Plateau pressure, cmH2O | ||||
| Post induction | 24.2 ± 4.4 | 26.1 ± 4.0 | 35.0 ± 4.1 | 0.004 |
| 60 min | 24.4 ± 4.2 | 26.1 ± 4.2 | 35.4 ± 3.8 | 0.012 |
| 120 min | 25.1 ± 4.1 | 26.4 ± 4.0 | 35.5 ± 5.0 | 0.038 |
| 180 min | 25.0 ± 4.3 | 26.7 ± 3.8 | 35.4 ± 4.7 | 0.008 |
| Fractional inspiratory oxygen concentration, % | ||||
| Post induction | 0.45 ± 0.06 | 0.44 ± 0.05 | 0.44 ± 0.05 | 0.215 |
| 60 min | 0.45 ± 0.06 | 0.41 ± 0.02 | 0.41 ± 0.02 | 0.001 |
| 120 min | 0.45 ± 0.06 | 0.41 ± 0.02 | 0.41 ± 0.02 | <0.001 |
| 180 min | 0.45 ± 0.06 | 0.41 ± 0.01 | 0.41 ± 0.01 | <0.001 |
| End-tidal carbon dioxide fraction, % | ||||
| Postinduction | 5.4 ± 0.4 | 5.4 ± 0.4 | 5.0 ± 0.2 | 0.825 |
| 60 min | 5.5 ± 0.4 | 5.5 ± 0.4 | 5.0 ± 0.3 | 0.945 |
| 120 min | 5.6 ± 0.4 | 5.5 ± 0.5 | 4.9 ± 0.3 | 0.876 |
| 180 min | 5.7 ± 0.3 | 5.6 ± 0.4 | 5.0 ± 0.3 | 0.892 |
| Driving pressure, cmH2O | ||||
| Post induction | 20.2 ± 4.4 | 14.1 ± 4.0 | 23.0 ± 4.1 | < 0.001 |
| 60 min | 20.4 ± 4.2 | 14.1 ± 4.2 | 23.4 ± 3.8 | < 0.001 |
| 120 min | 21.1 ± 4.1 | 14.5 ± 4.2 | 23.5 ± 5.0 | < 0.001 |
| 180 min | 21.0 ± 4.3 | 14.7 ± 3.8 | 23.4 ± 4.7 | < 0.001 |
| Compliance, ml cmH2O-1 | ||||
| Post induction | 26.4 ± 7.0 | 31.6 ± 9.1 | 38.9 ± 10.6 | < 0.001 |
| 60 min | 25.6 ± 5.5 | 32.5 ± 11.2 | 39.0 ± 10.2 | < 0.001 |
| 120 min | 24.2 ± 4.5 | 30.8 ± 8.4 | 39.2 ± 10.0 | < 0.001 |
| 180 min | 22.8 ± 4.2 | 30.2 ± 7.5 | 39.8 ± 9.9 | < 0.001 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
PBW, predicted body weight.
High PEEP vs. low PEEP.
Fig. 4Intra-operative effects of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with recruitment manoeuvres vs. low PEEP on mean arterial blood pressure, cardiac output as well as left and right-sided cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS).