IMPORTANCE An intraoperative higher level of positive end-expiratory positive pressure (PEEP) with alveolar recruitment maneuvers improves respiratory function in obese patients undergoing surgery, but the effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain. OBJECTIVE To determine whether a higher level of PEEP with alveolar recruitment maneuvers decreases postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients undergoing surgery compared with a lower level of PEEP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial of 2013 adults with body mass indices of 35 or greater and substantial risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who were undergoing noncardiac, nonneurological surgery under general anesthesia. The trial was conducted at 77 sites in 23 countries from July 2014-February 2018; final follow-up: May 2018. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to the high level of PEEP group (n = 989), consisting of a PEEP level of 12 cm H 2 O with alveolar recruitment maneuvers (a stepwise increase of tidal volume and eventually PEEP) or to the low level of PEEP group (n = 987), consisting of a PEEP level of 4 cm H 2 O. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with a tidal volume of 7 mL/kg of predicted body weight. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was a composite of pulmonary complications within the first 5 postoperative days, including respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, bronchospasm, new pulmonary infiltrates, pulmonary infection, aspiration pneumonitis, pleural effusion, atelectasis, cardiopulmonary edema, and pneumothorax. Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were intraoperative complications, including hypoxemia (oxygen desaturation with SpO 2 Յ92% for >1 minute). RESULTS Among 2013 adults who were randomized, 1976 (98.2%) completed the trial (mean age, 48.8 years; 1381 [69.9%] women; 1778 [90.1%] underwent abdominal operations). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 211 of 989 patients (21.3%) in the high level of PEEP group compared with 233 of 987 patients (23.6%) in the low level of PEEP group (difference, −2.3% [95% CI, −5.9% to 1.4%]; risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.04]; P = .23). Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 were not significantly different between the high and low level of PEEP groups, and 3 were significantly different, including fewer patients with hypoxemia (5.0% in the high level of PEEP group vs 13.6% in the low level of PEEP group; difference, −8.6% [95% CI, −11.1% to 6.1%]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among obese patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia, an intraoperative mechanical ventilation strategy with a higher level of PEEP and alveolar recruitment maneuvers, compared with a strategy with a lower level of PEEP, did not reduce postoperative pulmonary complications.

Background The optimal method for blood pressure monitoring in obese surgical patients remains unknown. Arterial catheters can cause potential complications, and noninvasive oscillometry provides only intermittent values. Finger cuff methods allow continuous noninvasive monitoring. The authors tested the hypothesis that the agreement between finger cuff and intraarterial measurements is better than the agreement between oscillometric and intraarterial measurements. Methods This prospective study compared intraarterial (reference method), finger cuff, and oscillometric (upper arm, forearm, and lower leg) blood pressure measurements in 90 obese patients having bariatric surgery using Bland–Altman analysis, four-quadrant plot and concordance analysis (to assess the ability of monitoring methods to follow blood pressure changes), and error grid analysis (to describe the clinical relevance of measurement differences). Results The difference (mean ± SD) between finger cuff and intraarterial measurements was −1 mmHg (± 11 mmHg) for mean arterial pressure, −7 mmHg (± 14 mmHg) for systolic blood pressure, and 0 mmHg (± 11 mmHg) for diastolic blood pressure. Concordance between changes in finger cuff and intraarterial measurements was 88% (mean arterial pressure), 85% (systolic blood pressure), and 81% (diastolic blood pressure). In error grid analysis comparing finger cuff and intraarterial measurements, the proportions of measurements in risk zones A to E were 77.1%, 21.6%, 0.9%, 0.4%, and 0.0% for mean arterial pressure, respectively, and 89.5%, 9.8%, 0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.2%, respectively, for systolic blood pressure. For mean arterial pressure and diastolic blood pressure, absolute agreement and trending agreement between finger cuff and intraarterial measurements were better than between oscillometric (at each of the three measurement sites) and intraarterial measurements. Forearm performed better than upper arm and lower leg monitoring with regard to absolute agreement and trending agreement with intraarterial monitoring. Conclusions The agreement between finger cuff and intraarterial measurements was better than the agreement between oscillometric and intraarterial measurements for mean arterial pressure and diastolic blood pressure in obese patients during surgery. Forearm oscillometry exhibits better measurement performance than upper arm or lower leg oscillometry. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New