Dataset Information

Perioperative lung protective ventilation in obese patients.

ABSTRACT: The perioperative use and relevance of protective ventilation in surgical patients is being increasingly recognized. Obesity poses particular challenges to adequate mechanical ventilation in addition to surgical constraints, primarily by restricted lung mechanics due to excessive adiposity, frequent respiratory comorbidities (i.e. sleep apnea, asthma), and concerns of postoperative respiratory depression and other pulmonary complications. The number of surgical patients with obesity is increasing, and facing these challenges is common in the operating rooms and critical care units worldwide. In this review we summarize the existing literature which supports the following recommendations for the perioperative ventilation in obese patients: (1) the use of protective ventilation with low tidal volumes (approximately 8 mL/kg, calculated based on predicted -not actual- body weight) to avoid volutrauma; (2) a focus on lung recruitment by utilizing PEEP (8-15 cmH2O) in addition to recruitment maneuvers during the intraoperative period, as well as incentivized deep breathing and noninvasive ventilation early in the postoperative period, to avoid atelectasis, hypoxemia and atelectrauma; and (3) a judicious oxygen use (ideally less than 0.8) to avoid hypoxemia but also possible reabsorption atelectasis. Obesity poses an additional challenge for achieving adequate protective ventilation during one-lung ventilation, but different lung isolation techniques have been adequately performed in obese patients by experienced providers. Postoperative efforts should be directed to avoid hypoventilation, atelectasis and hypoxemia. Further studies are needed to better define optimum protective ventilation strategies and analyze their impact on the perioperative outcomes of surgical patients with obesity.

SUBMITTER: Fernandez-Bustamante A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4491899 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perioperative lung protective ventilation in obese patients.

Fernandez-Bustamante Ana A Hashimoto Soshi S Serpa Neto Ary A Moine Pierre P Vidal Melo Marcos F MF Repine John E JE

BMC anesthesiology 20150506

The perioperative use and relevance of protective ventilation in surgical patients is being increasingly recognized. Obesity poses particular challenges to adequate mechanical ventilation in addition to surgical constraints, primarily by restricted lung mechanics due to excessive adiposity, frequent respiratory comorbidities (i.e. sleep apnea, asthma), and concerns of postoperative respiratory depression and other pulmonary complications. The number of surgical patients with obesity is increasin ...[more]

PMID: 25907273

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the Protective Ventilation in Cardiac Surgery (PROVECS) randomized, controlled trial, an open-lung ventilation strategy did not improve postoperative respiratory outcomes after on-pump cardiac surgery. In this prespecified subanalysis, the authors aimed to assess the regional distribution of ventilation and plasma biomarkers of lung epithelial and endothelial injury produced by that strategy.MethodsPerioperative open-lung ventilation consisted of recruitment maneuvers, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) = 8 cm H2O, and low-tidal volume ventilation including during cardiopulmonary bypass. Control ventilation strategy was a low-PEEP (2 cm H2O) low-tidal volume approach. Electrical impedance tomography was used serially throughout the perioperative period (n = 56) to compute the dorsal fraction of ventilation (defined as the ratio of dorsal tidal impedance variation to global tidal impedance variation). Lung injury was assessed serially using biomarkers of epithelial (soluble form of the receptor for advanced glycation end-products, sRAGE) and endothelial (angiopoietin-2) lung injury (n = 30).ResultsEighty-six patients (age = 64 ± 12 yr; EuroSCORE II = 1.65 ± 1.57%) undergoing elective on-pump cardiac surgery were studied. Induction of general anesthesia was associated with ventral redistribution of tidal volumes and higher dorsal fraction of ventilation in the open-lung than the control strategy (0.38 ± 0.07 vs. 0.30 ± 0.10; P = 0.004). No effect of the open-lung strategy on the dorsal fraction of ventilation was noted at the end of surgery after median sternotomy closure (open-lung = 0.37 ± 0.09 vs. control = 0.34 ± 0.11; P = 0.743) or in extubated patients at postoperative day 2 (open-lung = 0.63 ± 0.18 vs. control = 0.59 ± 0.11; P > 0.999). Open-lung ventilation was associated with increased intraoperative plasma sRAGE (7,677 ± 3,097 pg/ml vs. 6,125 ± 1,400 pg/ml; P = 0.037) and had no effect on angiopoietin-2 (P > 0.999).ConclusionsIn cardiac surgery patients, open-lung ventilation provided larger dorsal lung ventilation early during surgery without a maintained benefit as compared with controls at the end of surgery and postoperative day 2 and was associated with higher intraoperative plasma concentration of sRAGE suggesting lung overdistension.Editor’s perspective

Project description:BackgroundPneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position in laparoscopic surgeries could contribute to postoperative pulmonary dysfunction. In recent years, intraoperative lung-protective mechanical ventilation (LPV) has been reportedly able to attenuate ventilator-induced lung injuries (VILI). Our objectives were to test the hypothesis that LPV could improve intraoperative oxygenation function, pulmonary mechanics and early postoperative atelectasis in laparoscopic surgeries.MethodsIn this randomized controlled clinical trial, 62 patients indicated for elective abdominal laparoscopic surgeries with an expected duration of greater than 2 h were randomly assigned to receive either lung-protective ventilation (LPV) with a tidal volume (Vt) of 7 ml kg- 1 ideal body weight (IBW), 10 cmH2O positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) combined with regular recruitment maneuvers (RMs) or conventional ventilation (CV) with a Vt of 10 ml kg- 1 IBW, 0 cmH2O in PEEP and no RMs. The primary endpoints were the changes in the ratio of PaO2 to FiO2 (P/F). The secondary endpoints were the differences between the two groups in PaO2, alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient (A-aO2), intraoperative pulmonary mechanics and the incidence of atelectasis detected on chest x-ray on the first postoperative day.ResultsIn comparison to CV group, the intraoperative P/F and PaO2 in LPV group were significantly higher while the intraoperative A-aO2 was clearly lower. Cdyn and Cstat at all the intraoperative time points in LPV group were significantly higher compared to CV group (p < 0.05). There were no differences in the incidence of atelectasis on day one after surgery between the two groups.ConclusionsLung protective mechanical ventilation significantly improved intraoperative pulmonary oxygenation function and pulmonary compliance in patients experiencing various abdominal laparoscopic surgeries, but it could not ameliorate early postoperative atelectasis and oxygenation function on the first day after surgery.Trial registrationhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov/identifier: NCT04546932 (09/05/2020).

Project description:ObjectiveTo measure effects of ED crowding on lung-protective ventilation (LPV) utilization in critically ill ED patients.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of adult mechanically ventilated ED patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU), over a 3.5-year period at a single academic tertiary care hospital. Clinical data, including reason for intubation, severity of illness (MPM0-III), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) risk score (EDLIPS), and ventilator settings were extracted via electronic query of electronic health record and standardized chart abstraction. Crowding metrics were obtained at 5-min intervals and averaged over the ED stay, stratified by acuity and disposition. Multivariate logistic regression was used to predict likelihood of LPV prior to ED departure.ResultsMechanical ventilation was used in 446 patients for a median ED duration of 3.7 h (interquartile ratio, IQR, 2.3, 5.6). Mean MPM0-III score was 32.5 ± 22.7, with high risk for ARDS (EDLIPS ≥5) seen in 373 (82%) patients. Initial and final ED ventilator settings differed in 134 (30.0%) patients, of which only 47 (35.1%) involved tidal volume changes. Higher percentages of active ED patients (workup in-progress) and those requiring eventual admission were associated with lower odds of LPV utilization by ED departure (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.94-1.00; OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.94-1.00, respectively). In periods of high volume, ventilator adjustments to settings other than the tidal volume were associated with higher odds of LPV utilization. Reason for intubation, MPM0-III, and EDLIPS were not associated with LPV utilization, with no interactions detected in times of crowding.ConclusionsED patients remain on suboptimal tidal volume settings with infrequent ventilator adjustments during the ED stay. Hospitals should focus on both systemic factors and bedside physician and/or respiratory therapist interventions to increase LPV utilization in times of ED boarding and crowding for all patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lung-protective ventilation (LPV) has been found to minimize the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). However, whether LPV is able to diminish ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction (VIDD) remains unknown. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that LPV protects the diaphragm against VIDD. METHODS:Adult male Wistar rats received either conventional mechanical (tidal volume [VT]: 10 ml/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP]: 2 cm H2O; CV group) or lung-protective (VT: 5 ml/kg, PEEP: 10 cm H2O; LPV group) ventilation for 12 h. Then, diaphragms and lungs were collected for biochemical and histological analyses. Transcriptome sequencing (RNA-seq) was performed to determine the differentially expressed genes in the diaphragms between groups. RESULTS:Our results suggested that LPV was associated with diminished pulmonary injuries and reduced oxidative stress compared with the effects of the CV strategy in rats. However, animals that received LPV showed increased protein degradation, decreased cross-sectional areas (CSAs) of myofibers, and reduced forces of the diaphragm compared with the same parameters in animals receiving CV (p < 0.05). In addition, the LPV group showed a higher level of oxidative stress in the diaphragm than the CV group (p < 0.05). Moreover, RNA-seq and western blots revealed that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ coactivator-1alpha (PGC-1α), a powerful reactive oxygen species (ROS) inhibitor, was significantly downregulated in the LPV group compared with its expression in the CV group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Compared with the CV strategy, the LPV strategy did not protect the diaphragm against VIDD in rats. In contrast, the LPV strategy worsened VIDD by inducing oxidative stress together with the downregulation of PGC-1α in the diaphragm. However, further studies are required to determine the roles of PGC-1α in ventilator-induced diaphragmatic oxidative stress.

Dataset Information

Perioperative lung protective ventilation in obese patients.

Publications

Perioperative lung protective ventilation in obese patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets