Hyperoxia may considerably decrease cardiac output and increase systemic vascular resistance, but effects differ between patient categories. Heart failure patients were the most sensitive while no hemodynamic effects were seen in septic patients. There is currently no evidence supporting the notion that oxygen supplementation increases oxygen delivery.
BackgroundThe safety of perioperative hyperoxia is currently unclear. Previous studies in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery suggest reduced myocardial damage when avoiding extreme perioperative hyperoxia (>400 mmHg). In this study we investigated whether an oxygenation strategy from moderate hyperoxia to a near-physiological oxygen tension reduces myocardial damage and improves haemodynamics, organ dysfunction and oxidative stress.MethodsThis was a single-blind, single-centre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery. Fifty patients were randomised to a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2) target of 200–220 mmHg during cardiopulmonary bypass and 130–150 mmHg during intensive care unit (ICU) admission (control group) versus lower targets of 130–150 mmHg during cardiopulmonary bypass and 80–100 mmHg at the ICU (conservative group). Primary outcome was myocardial injury (CK-MB and Troponin-T) at ICU admission and 2, 6 and 12 hours thereafter.ResultsWeighted PaO2 during cardiopulmonary bypass was 220 mmHg (interquartile range (IQR) 211–233) vs. 157 (151–162) in the control and conservative group, respectively (P < 0.0001). During ICU admission, weighted PaO2 was 107 mmHg (86–141) vs. 90 (84–98) (P = 0.03), respectively. Area under the curve of CK-MB was median 23.5 μg/L/h (IQR 18.4–28.1) vs. 21.5 (15.8–26.6) (P = 0.35) and 0.30 μg/L/h (0.25–0.44) vs. 0.39 (0.24–0.43) (P = 0.81) for Troponin-T. Cardiac index, systemic vascular resistance index, creatinine, lactate and F2-isoprostane levels were not different between groups.ConclusionsCompared to moderate hyperoxia, a near-physiological oxygen strategy does not reduce myocardial damage in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. Conservative oxygen administration was not associated with increased lactate levels or hypoxic events.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Registry NTR4375, registered on 30 January 2014Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1240-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
IMPORTANCE Hyperoxemia may increase organ dysfunction in critically ill patients, but optimal oxygenation targets are unknown.OBJECTIVE To determine whether a low-normal PaO 2 target compared with a high-normal target reduces organ dysfunction in critically ill patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Enrollment was from February 2015 to October 2018, with end of follow-up to January 2019, and included adult patients admitted with 2 or more SIRS criteria and expected stay of longer than 48 hours. A total of 9925 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 574 fulfilled the enrollment criteria and were randomized.INTERVENTIONS Target PaO 2 ranges were 8 to 12 kPa (low-normal, n = 205) and 14 to 18 kPa (high-normal, n = 195). An inspired oxygen fraction greater than 0.60 was applied only when clinically indicated.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary end point was SOFA RANK , a ranked outcome of nonrespiratory organ failure quantified by the nonrespiratory components of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, summed over the first 14 study days. Participants were ranked from fastest organ failure improvement (lowest scores) to worsening organ failure or death (highest scores). Secondary end points were duration of mechanical ventilation, in-hospital mortality, and hypoxemic measurements. RESULTS Among the 574 patients who were randomized, 400 (70%) were enrolled within 24 hours (median age, 68 years; 140 women [35%]), all of whom completed the trial. The median PaO 2 difference between the groups was −1.93 kPa (95% CI, −2.12 to −1.74; P < .001). The median SOFA RANK score was −35 points in the low-normal PaO 2 group vs −40 in the high-normal PaO 2 group (median difference, 10 [95% CI, 0 to 21]; P = .06). There was no significant difference in median duration of mechanical ventilation (3.4 vs 3.1 days; median difference, −0.15 [95% CI, −0.88 to 0.47]; P = .59) and in-hospital mortality (32% vs 31%; odds ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.67 to 1.63]; P = .91). Mild hypoxemic measurements occurred more often in the low-normal group (1.9% vs 1.2%; median difference, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.30 to 1.20]; P < .001). Acute kidney failure developed in 20 patients (10%) in the low-normal PaO 2 group and 21 patients (11%) in the high-normal PaO 2 group, and acute myocardial infarction in 6 patients (2.9%) in the low-normal PaO 2 group and 7 patients (3.6%) in the high-normal PaO 2 group.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among critically ill patients with 2 or more SIRS criteria, treatment with a low-normal PaO 2 target compared with a high-normal PaO 2 target did not result in a statistically significant reduction in organ dysfunction. However, the study may have had limited power to detect a smaller treatment effect than was hypothesized.
SummaryDuring and after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass, high concentrations of oxygen are routinely administered, with the intention of preventing cellular hypoxia. We systematically reviewed the literature addressing the effects of arterial hyperoxia. Extensive evidence from pre-clinical experiments and clinical studies in other patient groups suggests predominant harm, caused by oxidative stress, vasoconstriction, perfusion heterogeneity and myocardial injury.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.