Dataset Information

Low tidal volume ventilation for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a secondary analysis of a randomised clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We recently reported the results for a large randomized controlled trial of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) versus conventional tidal volume (CTVV) during major surgery when positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) was equal between groups. We found no difference in postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in patients who received LTVV. However, in the subgroup of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, LTVV was associated with a numerically lower rate of PPCs after surgery. We aimed to further assess the relationship between LTVV versus CTVV during laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

We conducted a post-hoc analysis of this pre-specified subgroup. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with an applied PEEP of 5 cmH₂O and either LTVV (6 mL/kg predicted body weight [PBW]) or CTVV (10 mL/kg PBW). The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite of PPCs within seven days.

Results

Three hundred twenty-eight patients (27.2%) underwent laparoscopic surgeries, with 158 (48.2%) randomised to LTVV. Fifty two of 157 patients (33.1%) assigned to LTVV and 72 of 169 (42.6%) assigned to conventional tidal volume developed PPCs within 7 days (unadjusted absolute difference, - 9.48 [95% CI, - 19.86 to 1.05]; p = 0.076). After adjusting for pre-specified confounders, the LTVV group had a lower incidence of the primary outcome than patients receiving CTVV (adjusted absolute difference, - 10.36 [95% CI, - 20.52 to - 0.20]; p = 0.046).

Conclusion

In this post-hoc analysis of a large, randomised trial of LTVV we found that during laparoscopic surgeries, LTVV was associated with a significantly reduced PPCs compared to CTVV when PEEP was applied equally between both groups.

Trial registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry no: 12614000790640.

SUBMITTER: Karalapillai D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9990198 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Low tidal volume ventilation for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a secondary analysis of a randomised clinical trial.

Karalapillai Dharshi D Weinberg Laurence L Neto Ary Serpa AS Peyton Philip J PJ Ellard Louise L Hu Raymond R Pearce Brett B Tan Chong O CO Story David D O'Donnell Mark M Hamilton Patrick P Oughton Chad C Galtieri Jonathan J Wilson Anthony A Liskaser Grace G Balasubramaniam Ajay A Eastwood Glenn G Bellomo Rinaldo R Jones Daryl A DA

BMC anesthesiology 20230307 1

<h4>Background</h4>We recently reported the results for a large randomized controlled trial of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) versus conventional tidal volume (CTVV) during major surgery when positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) was equal between groups. We found no difference in postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in patients who received LTVV. However, in the subgroup of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, LTVV was associated with a numerically lower rate of PPCs after s ...[more]

PMID: 36882701

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn patients who undergo mechanical ventilation during surgery, the ideal tidal volume is unclear.ObjectiveTo determine whether low-tidal-volume ventilation compared with conventional ventilation during major surgery decreases postoperative pulmonary complications.Design, setting, and participantsSingle-center, assessor-blinded, randomized clinical trial of 1236 patients older than 40 years undergoing major noncardiothoracic, nonintracranial surgery under general anesthesia lasting more than 2 hours in a tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia, from February 2015 to February 2019. The last date of follow-up was February 17, 2019.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg predicted body weight (n = 614; low tidal volume group) or a tidal volume of 10 mL/kg predicted body weight (n = 592; conventional tidal volume group). All patients received positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) at 5 cm H2O.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications within the first 7 postoperative days, including pneumonia, bronchospasm, atelectasis, pulmonary congestion, respiratory failure, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, or unplanned requirement for postoperative invasive or noninvasive ventilation. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pulmonary complications including development of pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory distress syndrome, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, acute kidney injury, wound infection (superficial and deep), rate of intraoperative need for vasopressor, incidence of unplanned intensive care unit admission, rate of need for rapid response team call, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality.ResultsAmong 1236 patients who were randomized, 1206 (98.9%) completed the trial (mean age, 63.5 years; 494 [40.9%] women; 681 [56.4%] undergoing abdominal surgery). The primary outcome occurred in 231 of 608 patients (38%) in the low tidal volume group compared with 232 of 590 patients (39%) in the conventional tidal volume group (difference, -1.3% [95% CI, -6.8% to 4.2%]; risk ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.84-1.11]; P = .64). There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceAmong adult patients undergoing major surgery, intraoperative ventilation with low tidal volume compared with conventional tidal volume, with PEEP applied equally between groups, did not significantly reduce pulmonary complications within the first 7 postoperative days.Trial registrationANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12614000790640.

Project description:Postoperative pulmonary complications are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery. There are no recommendations on mechanical ventilation associated with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) during surgery and anesthesiologists perform either no ventilation (noV) at all during CPB or maintain low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation. Indirect evidence points towards better pulmonary outcomes when LTV is performed but no large-scale prospective trial has yet been published in cardiac surgery.The MECANO trial is a single-center, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing two mechanical ventilation strategies, noV and LTV, during cardiac surgery with CPB. In total, 1500 patients are expected to be included, without any restrictions. They will be randomized between noV and LTV on a 1:1 ratio. The noV group will receive no ventilation during CPB. The LTV group will receive 5 breaths/minute with a tidal volume of 3 mL/kg and positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cmH2O. The primary endpoint will be a composite of all-cause mortality, early respiratory failure defined as a ratio of partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen <200 mmHg at 1 hour after arrival in the ICU, heavy oxygenation support (defined as a patient requiring either non-invasive ventilation, mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen) at 2 days after arrival in the ICU or ventilator-acquired pneumonia defined by the Center of Disease Control. Lung recruitment maneuvers will be performed in the noV and LTV groups at the end of surgery and at arrival in ICU with an insufflation at +30 cmH20 for 5 seconds. Secondary endpoints are those composing the primary endpoint with the addition of pneumothorax, CPB duration, quantity of postoperative bleeding, red blood cell transfusions, revision surgery requirements, length of stay in the ICU and in the hospital and total hospitalization costs. Patients will be followed until hospital discharge.The MECANO trial is the first of its kind to compare in a double-blind design, a no-ventilation to a low-tidal volume strategy for mechanical ventilation during cardiac surgery with CPB, with a primary composite outcome including death, respiratory failure and postoperative pneumonia.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03098524 . Registered on 27 February 2017.

Project description:Background and Objectives: Laparoscopic surgery, which results in less bleeding, less postoperative pain, and better cosmetic results, may affect the lung dynamics via the pneumoperitoneum. After laparoscopic surgery, atelectasis develops. The primary aim of the present study is to demonstrate the effects of two different ventilation modes on the development of atelectasis using lung ultrasound, and the secondary outcomes include the plateau pressure, peak inspiratory pressure, and compliance differences between the groups. Materials and Methods: In this study, 62 participants aged 18-75 years undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were enrolled. The patients were randomly assigned into two groups: the volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) group (group V) or the pressure-controlled-volume guaranteed ventilation (PCV-VG) group (group PV). The lung ultrasound score (LUS) was obtained thrice: prior to induction (T1), upon the patient's initial arrival in the recovery room (T2), and just before departing the recovery unit (T3). The hemodynamic data and mechanical ventilation parameters were recorded at different times intraoperatively. Results: The LUS score was similar between the groups at all the times. The change in the LUS score of the right lower anterior chest was statistically higher in the VCV group than the PCV group. The peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) was found to be statistically higher in the V group than the PV group five minutes after induction (T5) (20.84 ± 4.32 p = 0.021). The plateau pressure was found to be higher in the V group than the PV group at all times (after induction (Tind) 17.29 ± 5.53 p = 0.004, (T5) 17.77 ± 4.89 p = 0.001, after pneumoperitoneum (TPP) 19.71 ± 4.28 p = 0.002). Compliance was found to be statistically higher in the PV group than the V group at all times ((Tind) 48.87 ± 15.37 p = 0.011, (T5) 47.94 ± 13.71 p = 0.043, (TPP) 35.65 ± 6.90 p = 0.004). Before and after the pneumoperitoneum, the compliance was determined to be lower in the V group than the PV group, respectively (40.68 ± 13.91 p = 0.043, 30.77 ± 5.73 p = 0.004). Conclusions: LUS score was similar between groups at all times. The PCV-VG mode was superior to the VCV mode in providing optimal ventilatory pressures and maintaining high dynamic compliance in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Low tidal volume ventilation lowers mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Previous studies reported poor low tidal volume ventilation implementation. We sought to determine the rate, quality, and predictors of low tidal volume ventilation use. DESIGN:Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING:One academic and three community hospitals in the Chicago region. PATIENTS:A total of 362 adults meeting the Berlin Definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome consecutively admitted between June and December 2013. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Seventy patients (19.3%) were treated with low tidal volume ventilation (tidal volume < 6.5?mL/kg predicted body weight) at some time during mechanical ventilation. In total, 22.2% of patients requiring an FIO2 greater than 40% and 37.3% of patients with FIO2 greater than 40% and plateau pressure greater than 30?cm H2O received low tidal volume ventilation. The entire cohort received low tidal volume ventilation 11.4% of the time patients had acute respiratory distress syndrome. Among patients who received low tidal volume ventilation, the mean (SD) percentage of acute respiratory distress syndrome time it was used was 59.1% (38.2%), and 34% waited more than 72 hours prior to low tidal volume ventilation initiation. Women were less likely to receive low tidal volume ventilation, whereas sepsis and FIO2 greater than 40% were associated with increased odds of low tidal volume ventilation use. Four attending physicians (6.2%) initiated low tidal volume ventilation within 1 day of acute respiratory distress syndrome onset for greater than or equal to 50% of their patients, whereas 34 physicians (52.3%) never initiated low tidal volume ventilation within 1 day of acute respiratory distress syndrome onset. In total, 54.4% of patients received a tidal volume less than 8?mL/kg predicted body weight, and the mean tidal volume during the first 72 hours after acute respiratory distress syndrome onset was never less than 8?mL/kg predicted body weight. CONCLUSIONS:More than 12 years after publication of the landmark low tidal volume ventilation study, use remains poor. Interventions that improve adoption of low tidal volume ventilation are needed.

Project description:ObjectivesLow tidal volume (= tidal volume ≤ 6 mL/kg, predicted body weight) ventilation using volume control benefits patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Airway pressure release ventilation is an alternative to low tidal volume-volume control ventilation, but the release breaths generated are variable and can exceed tidal volume breaths of low tidal volume-volume control. We evaluate the application of a low tidal volume-compatible airway pressure release ventilation protocol that manages release volumes on both clinical and feasibility endpoints.DesignWe designed a prospective randomized trial in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We randomized patients to low tidal volume-volume control, low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation, and traditional airway pressure release ventilation with a planned enrollment of 246 patients. The study was stopped early because of low enrollment and inability to consistently achieve tidal volumes less than 6.5 mL/kg in the low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation arm. Although the primary clinical study endpoint was PaO2/FIO2 on study day 3, we highlight the feasibility outcomes related to tidal volumes in both arms.SettingFour Intermountain Healthcare tertiary ICUs.PatientsAdult ICU patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation.InterventionsLow tidal volume-volume control, airway pressure release ventilation, and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation.Measurements and main resultsWe observed wide variability and higher tidal (release for airway pressure release ventilation) volumes in both airway pressure release ventilation (8.6 mL/kg; 95% CI, 7.8-9.6) and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (8.0; 95% CI, 7.3-8.9) than volume control (6.8; 95% CI, 6.2-7.5; p = 0.005) with no difference between airway pressure release ventilation and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (p = 0.58). Recognizing the limitations of small sample size, we observed no difference in 52 patients in day 3 PaO2/ FIO2 (p = 0.92). We also observed no significant difference between arms in sedation, vasoactive medications, or occurrence of pneumothorax.ConclusionsAirway pressure release ventilation resulted in release volumes often exceeding 12 mL/kg despite a protocol designed to target low tidal volume ventilation. Current airway pressure release ventilation protocols are unable to achieve consistent and reproducible delivery of low tidal volume ventilation goals. A large-scale efficacy trial of low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation is not feasible at this time in the absence of an explicit, generalizable, and reproducible low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation protocol.

Project description:Introduction: The ideal ventilation strategy for patients with massive brain damage requires better elucidation. We hypothesized that in the presence of massive brain injury, a ventilation strategy using low (6 mL/kg) tidal volume (VT) ventilation with open lung positive end-expiratory pressure set according to the minimal static elastance of the respiratory system (LVT/OLPEEP), attenuate the impact of massive brain damage on gas-exchange, respiratory mechanics, lung histology and whole genome alterations compared with high (12 mL/kg) VT and low PEEP ventilation (HVT/LPEEP). Methods: Twenty-eight adult male Wistar rats were randomly assigned to one of four groups: 1) no brain damage (NBD) with LVT/OLPEEP; 2) NBD with HVT/LPEEP; 3) brain damage (BD) with LVT/OLPEEP; and 4) BD with HVT/LPEEP. All animals were mechanically ventilated for six hours. Brain damage was induced by an inflated balloon catheter into the epidural space. Hemodynamics was recorded and blood gas analysis was performed hourly. At the end of the experiment, respiratory system mechanics and lung histology were analysed. Whole genome analysis was performed using Affimetrix gene chips and confirmatory real-time PCR. Results: In NBD, both LVT/OLPEEP and HVT/LPEEP did not affect arterial blood gases, as well as whole genome expression changes and real-time PCR. In BD, LVT/OLPEEP, compared to HVT/LPEEP, reduced lung damage according to histology, genome analysis and real-time PCR with decreased interleukin (IL-6), cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant (CINC)-1 and angiopoietin-4 expressions. LVT/OLPEEP compared to HVT/LPEEP improved overall survival. Conclusions: In BD, LVT/OLPEEP minimizes lung morpho-functional changes and inflammation compared to HVT/LPEEP. LVT/OLPEEP might represent a suitable ventilatory strategy in massive brain damage. 24 Wistar rats - lung samples, 4 groups, 1. non-braindamaged/braindead high tidal volume ventilation, 2. non-braindamaged/braindead best PEEP ventilation, 3. Braindamaged/braindead high tidal volume ventilation, 4. Braindamaged/braindead best PEEP ventilation

Dataset Information

Low tidal volume ventilation for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a secondary analysis of a randomised clinical trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Low tidal volume ventilation for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a secondary analysis of a randomised clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets