No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

During one-lung ventilation, the improvements in oxygenation and lung mechanics after an alveolar recruitment maneuver were better preserved by ventilation by using individualized PEEP with a PEEP decrement trial than with a standardized 5 cm·H2O of PEEP.

No abstract

Today, one of the biggest challenges our society must face is the satisfactory supply, dispatchability and management of the energy. Thermal Energy Storage (TES) has been identified as a breakthrough concept in industrial heat recovery applications and development of renewable technologies such as concentrated solar power (CSP) plants or compressed air energy storage (CAES). A wide variety of potential heat storage materials has been identified depending on the implemented TES method: sensible, latent or thermochemical. Although no ideal storage material has been identified, several materials have shown a high potential depending on the mentioned considerations. Despite the amount of studied potential heat storage materials, the determination of new alternatives for next generation technologies is still open. One of the main drawbacks in the development of storage materials is their cost. In this regard, this paper presents the review of waste materials and by-products candidates which use contributes in lowering the total cost of the storage system and the valorization of waste industrial materials have strong environmental and societal benefits such as reducing the landfilled waste amounts, reducing the greenhouse emissions and others. This article reviews different industrial waste materials that have been considered as potential TES materials and have been characterized as such. Asbestos containing wastes, fly ashes, by-products from the salt industry and from the metal industry, wastes from recycling steel process and from copper refining process and dross from the aluminum industry, and municipal wastes (glass and nylon) have been considered. Themophysical properties, characterization and experiences using these candidates are discussed and compared. This review shows that the revalorization of wastes or by-products as TES materials is possible, and that more studies are needed to achieve industrial deployment of the idea.

No abstract

Background: We aimed to examine whether using a high fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO 2 ) in the context of an individualised intra-and postoperative open-lung ventilation approach could decrease surgical site infection (SSI) in patients scheduled for abdominal surgery. Methods: We performed a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial in a network of 21 university hospitals from June 6, 2017 to July 19, 2018. Patients undergoing abdominal surgery were randomly assigned to receive a high (0.80) or conventional (0.3) FIO 2 during the intraoperative period and during the first 3 postoperative hours. All patients were mechanically ventilated with an open-lung strategy, which included recruitment manoeuvres and individualised positive end-expiratory pressure for the best respiratory-system compliance, and individualised continuous postoperative airway pressure for adequate peripheral oxyhaemoglobin saturation. The primary outcome was the prevalence of SSI within the first 7 postoperative days. The secondary outcomes were composites of systemic complications, length of intensive care and hospital stay, and 6-month mortality. Results: We enrolled 740 subjects: 371 in the high FIO 2 group and 369 in the low FIO 2 group. Data from 717 subjects were available for final analysis. The rate of SSI during the first postoperative week did not differ between high (8.9%) and low (9.4%) FIO 2 groups (relative risk [RR]: 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59e1.50; P¼0.90]). Secondary outcomes, such as atelectasis (7.7% vs 9.8%; RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.48e1.25; P¼0.38) and myocardial ischaemia (0.6% [n¼2] vs 0% [n¼0]; P¼0.47) did not differ between groups. Conclusions: An oxygenation strategy using high FIO 2 compared with conventional FIO 2 did not reduce postoperative SSIs in abdominal surgery. No differences in secondary outcomes or adverse events were found. Clinical trial registration: NCT02776046.