Lung protective ventilation in patients undergoing major surgery: a systematic review incorporating a Bayesian approach

Zhang, Zhongheng; Hu, Xiaoyun; Xia, Zhengyuan; Zhu, Xiuqi; Chen, Liqian; Zhu, Li; Hu, Caibao; Du, Bin

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007473

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8 mL/kg predicted bodyweight). This is in line with current recommendations [25][26][27] and is used in previous clinical trials of intraoperative ventilation before [12,13,15], allowing for good comparison of the DESIGNATION results with those from preceding trials.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Driving Pressure During General Anesthesia for Open Abdominal Surgery (DESIGNATION): study protocol of a randomized clinical trial

Hol¹,

Nijbroek²,

Neto³

et al. 2020

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Intraoperative driving pressure (ΔP) is associated with development of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC). When tidal volume (V T ) is kept constant, ΔP may change according to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)-induced changes in lung aeration. ΔP may decrease if PEEP leads to a recruitment of collapsed lung tissue but will increase if PEEP mainly causes pulmonary overdistension. This study tests the hypothesis that individualized high PEEP, when compared to fixed low PEEP, protects against PPC in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery. Methods:The "Driving prESsure durIng GeNeral AnesThesIa for Open abdomiNal surgery trial" (DESIGNATION) is an international, multicenter, two-group, double-blind randomized clinical superiority trial. A total of 1468 patients will be randomly assigned to one of the two intraoperative ventilation strategies. Investigators screen patients aged ≥ 18 years and with a body mass index ≤ 40 kg/m 2 , scheduled for open abdominal surgery and at risk for PPC. Patients either receive an intraoperative ventilation strategy with individualized high PEEP with recruitment maneuvers (RM) ("individualized high PEEP") or one in which PEEP of 5 cm H 2 O without RM is used ("low PEEP"). In the "individualized high PEEP" group, PEEP is set at the level at which ΔP is lowest. In both groups of the trial, V T is kept at 8 mL/kg predicted body weight. The primary endpoint is the occurrence of PPC, recorded as a collapsed composite of adverse pulmonary events.Discussion: DESIGNATION will be the first randomized clinical trial that is adequately powered to compare the effects of individualized high PEEP with RM versus fixed low PEEP without RM on the occurrence of PPC after open abdominal surgery. The results of DESIGNATION will support anesthesiologists in their decisions regarding PEEP settings during open abdominal surgery. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03884543. Registered on 21 March 2019.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Driving Pressure During General Anesthesia for Open Abdominal Surgery (DESIGNATION): study protocol of a randomized clinical trial

Hol¹,

Nijbroek²,

Neto³

et al. 2020

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Zhang et al 39 performed a systematic review of 22 studies of subjects undergoing general anesthesia during major surgery and the development of ALI. They found that lower V T ventilation was associated with a protective effect against the development of ALI.…”

Section: Ventilation Of Surgical Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should A Tidal Volume of 6 mL/kg Be Used in All Patients?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been shown that mechanical ventilation by itself can cause lung injury and affect outcomes. Ventilator-induced lung injury is associated with high tidal volumes in lungs afflicted with ARDS. However, the question is: Do high tidal volumes have this same effect in normal lungs or lungs that have respiratory compromise stemming from something other than ARDS? Many clinicians believe that a tidal volume strategy of 6 mL/kg predicted body weight should be standard practice in all patients receiving mechanical ventilation. There is a growing body of evidence related to this issue, and this is the debate that will be tackled in this paper from both pro and con perspectives. Key words: tidal volume; predicted body weight; mechanical ventilation; lung-protective ventilation; time constant; ARDS; stress; strain; hypercapnia. [Respir Care 2016;61(6):774 -790 . © 2016 Daedalus Enterprises] IntroductionIt is well known that the use of mechanical ventilation has the potential to aggravate pulmonary injury, but emerging evidence indicates that it may also precipitate lung injury in patients with no previous injury. Lung-protective ventilation has evolved over the past couple of decades to the point that it has become standard of care for patients with ARDS. The use of lower tidal volume (V T ) 4 -8 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) is part of this lung-protective strategy for mechanical ventilation (mechanical ventilation) along with limiting the plateau pressure to a maximum of 30 cm H 2 O and prudent use of PEEP to prevent atelectasis. Since we now know that the use of lower V T strategies (more specifically 6 mL/kg PBW) helps to limit the pulmonary damage during ARDS, the question now is: Should we be using this strategy in all mechanically ventilated patients? Anatomically speaking, it makes sense to, since the normal physiologic V T for humans is approximately 6 mL/kg PBW. 1 There is a growing body of evidence that points toward the use of lower V T values leading to improved outcomes in patients suffering from other forms and degrees of respiratory failure. The aim of this paper is to examine the evidence relating to the use of lower V T values in conditions other than ARDS in which mechanical ventilation is required. This will be done with viewpoints from both the pro and con positions. Early StudiesThere is a plethora of preclinical evidence from animal studies supporting the fact that the use of high V T values can directly cause injury to normal lungs. Animal studies have shown that high V T ventilation increases levels of pro-inflammatory mediators, leads to pulmonary edema, and causes increased alveolar-capillary permeability and structural abnormalities. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] With the emergence of these animal data, clinicians began to question the traditional use of V T values in the range of 10 -15 mL/kg PBW in humans. Several small human studies were reported in the mid-to late 1990s that produced conflicting results. 9-11 These studies were hampered by several factors, including higher than predicte...

show abstract

“…These adverse effects of NIV could be avoided by using IMV. For example, protective ventilation strategy can be performed with IMV [25,26], but it is impossible under NIV. Furthermore, the use of NIV or HFNC can delay IMV, leading to emergency or more unstable intubations [27].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cumulative oxygen deficit is a novel biomarker for the timing of invasive mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients with respiratory distress: a time-dependent propensity score analysis

Zhou

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives: The timing of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is controversial in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory hypoxemia. The study aimed to develop a novel biomarker called cumulative oxygen deficit (COD) for the initiation of IMV.Methods: The study was conducted in four designated hospitals for treating COVID-19 patients in Jingmen, Wuhan, from January to March 2020. COD was defined to account for both the magnitude and duration of hypoxemia. A higher value of COD indicated more oxygen deficit. The predictive performance of COD was calculated in multivariable Cox regression models. Time-dependent propensity score matching was performed to explore the effectiveness of IMV versus other non-invasive respiratory supports on survival outcome.Results: A number of 111 patients including 80 in the non-IMV group and 31 in the IMV group were included. Patients with IMV had significantly lower PaO2 (62 (49, 89) vs. 90.5 (68, 125.25) mmHg; p < 0.001), and higher COD (-6.87 (-29.36, 52.38) vs. -231.68 (-1040.78, 119.83)) than patients without IMV. As compared to patients with COD < 0, patients with COD > 30 had higher risk of fatality (HR: 3.79, 95% CI: 2.57 to 16.93; p = 0.037) , and those with COD > 50 were 10 times more likely to die (HR: 10.45, 95% CI: 1.28 to 85.37; p = 0.029). The Cox regression model performed in the time-dependent propensity score matched cohort showed that IMV was associated with half of the hazard of death than those without IMV (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.16 to 1.93; p = 0.358).Conclusions: The study developed a novel biomarker COD which considered both magnitude and duration of hypoxemia, to assist the timing of IMV in patients with COVID-19. We suggest IMV should be the preferred ventilatory support once the COD reaches 30.

show abstract

Lung protective ventilation in patients undergoing major surgery: a systematic review incorporating a Bayesian approach

Cited by 17 publications

References 46 publications

Driving Pressure During General Anesthesia for Open Abdominal Surgery (DESIGNATION): study protocol of a randomized clinical trial

Driving Pressure During General Anesthesia for Open Abdominal Surgery (DESIGNATION): study protocol of a randomized clinical trial

Should A Tidal Volume of 6 mL/kg Be Used in All Patients?

Cumulative oxygen deficit is a novel biomarker for the timing of invasive mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients with respiratory distress: a time-dependent propensity score analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About