No abstract

European Society of Anaesthesiology.

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.

Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

We hypothesized that neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) compared to conventional lung-protective mechanical ventilation (MV) decreases duration of MV and mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Methods: We carried out a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in patients with ARF from several etiologies. Intubated patients ventilated for ≤ 5 days expected to require MV for ≥ 72 h and able to breathe spontaneously were eligible for enrollment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned based on balanced treatment assignments with a computerized randomization allocation sequence to two ventilatory strategies: (1) lung-protective MV (control group), and (2) lung-protective MV with NAVA (NAVA group). Allocation concealment was maintained at all sites during the trial. Primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days. Secondary outcome was all-cause hospital mortality. All analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. Results: Between March 2014 and October 2019, we enrolled 306 patients and randomly assigned 153 patients to the NAVA group and 153 to the control group. Median VFDs were higher in the NAVA than in the control group (22 vs. 18 days; between-group difference 4 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 8 days; p = 0.016). At hospital discharge, 39 (25.5%) patients in the NAVA group and 47 (30.7%) patients in the control group had died (between-group difference − 5.2%, 95% CI − 15.2 to 4.8, p = 0.31). Other clinical, physiological or safety outcomes did not differ significantly between the trial groups. Conclusion: NAVA decreased duration of MV although it did not improve survival in ventilated patients with ARF.

EudraCT 2009-017153-35; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01199276.

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.