Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Recently, several retrospective studies have suggested that pulmonary complication is related with driving pressure more than any other ventilatory parameter. Thus, the authors compared driving pressure–guided ventilation with conventional protective ventilation in thoracic surgery, where lung protection is of the utmost importance. The authors hypothesized that driving pressure–guided ventilation decreases postoperative pulmonary complications more than conventional protective ventilation. Methods In this double-blind, randomized, controlled study, 292 patients scheduled for elective thoracic surgery were included in the analysis. The protective ventilation group (n = 147) received conventional protective ventilation during one-lung ventilation: tidal volume 6 ml/kg of ideal body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 5 cm H2O, and recruitment maneuver. The driving pressure group (n = 145) received the same tidal volume and recruitment, but with individualized PEEP which produces the lowest driving pressure (plateau pressure–PEEP) during one-lung ventilation. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications based on the Melbourne Group Scale (at least 4) until postoperative day 3. Results Melbourne Group Scale of at least 4 occurred in 8 of 145 patients (5.5%) in the driving pressure group, as compared with 18 of 147 (12.2%) in the protective ventilation group (P = 0.047, odds ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.99). The number of patients who developed pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome was less in the driving pressure group than in the protective ventilation group (10/145 [6.9%] vs. 22/147 [15.0%], P = 0.028, odds ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.92). Conclusions Application of driving pressure–guided ventilation during one-lung ventilation was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications compared with conventional protective ventilation in thoracic surgery.

No abstract

The healthy condition of living donors makes their tolerance to pain particularly low, and clinicians are often challenged to come up with an analgesic technique that is effective yet ensures donor safety. This study compared, in donor right hepatectomy, the efficacy and safety of preoperative intrathecal morphine (ITM) combined with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) with IV-PCA alone. Forty adult patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups: ITM؉IV-PCA group (n ‫؍‬ 20) and IV-PCA-only group (n ‫؍‬ 20). Patients in the ITM؉IV-PCA group received morphine sulfate (400 g). The visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and when coughing and supplementary meperidine and IV-PCA (fentanyl) consumption were assessed at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, 48 56, 64, and 72 hours after surgery. Also, side effects such as sedation, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and respiratory depression were evaluated. The ITM؉IV-PCA group showed significantly less pain at rest and when coughing for up to 30 hours and 24 hours, respectively. Cumulative postoperative consumption of meperidine and IV-PCA (fentanyl) were significantly less in the ITM؉IV-PCA group. The incidence of side effects were comparable between the 2 groups except for pruritus; its incidence was significantly higher in the ITM؉IV-PCA group during the first 24 hours, but no treatment was required due to its mild severity. The results of our study suggest that preoperative ITM combined with IV-PCA may be considered as an effective and safe pain management regimen in living liver donors who have characteristics of low tolerance to pain and postoperative coagulation derangement. Liver Transpl 15:381-389, 2009.