Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Intraoperative lung-protective ventilation has been recommended to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications after abdominal surgery. Although the protective role of a more physiologic tidal volume has been established, the added protection afforded by positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) remains uncertain. The authors hypothesized that a low fixed PEEP might not fit all patients and that an individually titrated PEEP during anesthesia might improve lung function during and after surgery. Methods Forty patients were studied in the operating room (20 laparoscopic and 20 open-abdominal). They underwent elective abdominal surgery and were randomized to institutional PEEP (4 cm H2O) or electrical impedance tomography–guided PEEP (applied after recruitment maneuvers and targeted at minimizing lung collapse and hyperdistension, simultaneously). Patients were extubated without changing selected PEEP or fractional inspired oxygen tension while under anesthesia and submitted to chest computed tomography after extubation. Our primary goal was to individually identify the electrical impedance tomography–guided PEEP value producing the best compromise of lung collapse and hyperdistention. Results Electrical impedance tomography–guided PEEP varied markedly across individuals (median, 12 cm H2O; range, 6 to 16 cm H2O; 95% CI, 10–14). Compared with PEEP of 4 cm H2O, patients randomized to the electrical impedance tomography–guided strategy had less postoperative atelectasis (6.2 ± 4.1 vs. 10.8 ± 7.1% of lung tissue mass; P = 0.017) and lower intraoperative driving pressures (mean values during surgery of 8.0 ± 1.7 vs. 11.6 ± 3.8 cm H2O; P < 0.001). The electrical impedance tomography–guided PEEP arm had higher intraoperative oxygenation (435 ± 62 vs. 266 ± 76 mmHg for laparoscopic group; P < 0.001), while presenting equivalent hemodynamics (mean arterial pressure during surgery of 80 ± 14 vs. 78 ± 15 mmHg; P = 0.821). Conclusions PEEP requirements vary widely among patients receiving protective tidal volumes during anesthesia for abdominal surgery. Individualized PEEP settings could reduce postoperative atelectasis (measured by computed tomography) while improving intraoperative oxygenation and driving pressures, causing minimum side effects.
Introduction: Critically ill children in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) are at high risk for developing nutritional deficiencies and undernutrition is known to be a risk factor for morbidity and mortality. Malnutrition represents a continuous spectrum ranging from marginal nutrient status to severe metabolic and functional alterations and this in turn, affects clinical outcome. Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess nutritional status of critically ill children admitted to the PICU and its association to clinical outcomes. Methods: Critically ill children age 6 months to 18 years were prospectively enrolled on PICU admission. Nutritional status was assessed by weight for age (WFA: underweight), weight for height (WFH: wasting), height for age (HFA: stunting) z-scores and mid upper arm circumference (MUAC: wasting) according to the WHO. (1,2) Malnutrition was defined as mild, moderate, and severe if z-scores were > −1, > − 2, and > −3, respectively. Hospital and PICU length of stay (LOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), and risk of mortality (ROM) by the Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 (PIM2) were obtained. Sensitivity and specificity of the MUAC to identify children with wasting (WFH) were calculated. Results: Two hundred and fifty children (136 males), aged 81 months (23-167; median (25-75 th IQR)), were prospectively included in the study. The hospital LOS was 8 (4-16) days; PICU LOS: 2 (1-4) days; duration of MV, 0 (0-1.5) days;
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.