Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during anaesthesia for prevention of mortality and postoperative pulmonary complications

Intraoperative mechanical power and postoperative pulmonary complications in low-risk surgical patients: a prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Inadequate intraoperative mechanical ventilation (MV) can lead to ventilator-induced lung injury and increased risk for postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Mechanical power (MP) was shown to be a valuable indicator for MV outcomes in critical care patients. The aim of this study is to assess the association between intraoperative MP in low-risk surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia and PPCs.

METHODS

Two-hundred eighteen low-risk surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia for elective surgery were included in the study. Intraoperative mechanical ventilatory support parameters were collected for all patients. Postoperatively, patients were followed throughout their hospital stay and up to seven days post discharge for the occurrence of any PPCs.

RESULTS

Out of 218 patients, 35% exhibited PPCs. The average body mass index, tidal volume per ideal body weight, peak inspiratory pressure, and MP were significantly higher in the patients with PPCs than in the patients without PPCs (30.3 ± 8.1 kg/m2 vs. 26.8 ± 4.9 kg.m2, p < 0.001; 9.1 ± 1.9 ml/kg vs. 8.6 ± 1.4 ml/kg, p = 0.02; 20 ± 4.9 cmH2O vs. 18 ± 3.7 cmH2O, p = 0.001; 12.9 ± 4.5 J/min vs. 11.1 ± 3.7 J/min, p = 0.002). A multivariable regression analysis revealed MP as the sole significant predictor for the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications [OR 1.1 (95% CI 1.0-1.2, p = 0.036].

CONCLUSIONS

High intraoperative mechanical power is a risk factor for developing postoperative pulmonary complications. Furthermore, intraoperative mechanical power is superior to other traditional mechanical ventilation variables in identifying surgical patients who are at risk for developing postoperative pulmonary complications.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03551899; 24/02/2017.

Impact of a positive end-expiratory pressure strategy on oxygenation, respiratory compliance, and hemodynamics during laparoscopic surgery in non-obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during laparoscopic surgery may increase oxygenation and respiratory compliance. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the impact of different intraoperative PEEP strategies on arterial oxygenation, compliance, and hemodynamics during laparoscopic surgery in non-obese patients.

METHODS

We searched RCTs in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from January 2012 to April 2022 comparing the different intraoperative PEEP (Low PEEP (LPEEP): 0-4 mbar; Moderate PEEP (MPEEP): 5-8 mbar; high PEEP (HPEEP): >8 mbar; individualized PEEP - iPEEP) on arterial oxygenation, respiratory compliance (Cdyn), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR). We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and predictive intervals (PI) using random-effects models. The Cochrane Bias Risk Assessment Tool was applied.

RESULTS

21 RCTs (n = 1554) met the inclusion criteria. HPEEP vs. LPEEP increased PaO2 (+ 29.38 [16.20; 42.56] mmHg, p < 0.0001) or PaO2/FiO2 (+ 36.7 [+ 2.23; +71.70] mmHg, p = 0.04). HPEEP vs. MPEEP increased PaO2 (+ 22.00 [+ 1.11; +42.88] mmHg, p = 0.04) or PaO2/FiO2 (+ 42.7 [+ 2.74; +82.67] mmHg, p = 0.04). iPEEP vs. MPEEP increased PaO2/FiO2 (+ 115.2 [+ 87.21; +143.20] mmHg, p < 0.001). MPEEP vs. LPEP, and HPEEP vs. MPEEP increased PaO2 or PaO2/FiO2 significantly with different heterogeneity. HPEEP vs. LPEEP increased Cdyn (+ 7.87 [+ 1.49; +14.25] ml/mbar, p = 0.02). MPEEP vs. LPEEP, and HPEEP vs. MPEEP did not impact Cdyn (p = 0.14 and 0.38, respectively). iPEEP vs. LPEEP decreased driving pressure (-4.13 [-2.63; -5.63] mbar, p < 0.001). No significant differences in MAP or HR were found between any subgroups.

CONCLUSION

HPEEP and iPEEP during PNP in non-obese patients could promote oxygenation and increase Cdyn without clinically significant changes in MAP and HR. MPEEP could be insufficient to increase respiratory compliance and improve oxygenation. LPEEP may lead to decreased respiratory compliance and worsened oxygenation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42022362379; registered October 09, 2022.

Epidemiological profile and risk factors associated with death in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in an adult intensive care unit from Brazil: a retrospective study

Introduction

Understanding the epidemiological profile and risk factors associated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is essential to manage the patients better and to improve health services. Therefore, our objective was to describe the epidemiological profile of adult patients in intensive care that required IMV in-hospital treatment. Also, to evaluate the risks associated with death and the influence of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2) at admission in the clinical outcome.

Methods

We conducted an epidemiological study analyzing medical records of inpatients who received IMV from January 2016 to December 2019 prior to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic in Brazil. We considered the following characteristics in the statistical analysis: demographic data, diagnostic hypothesis, hospitalization data, and PEEP and PaO2 during IMV. We associated the patients' features with the risk of death using a multivariate binary logistic regression analysis. We adopted an alpha error of 0.05.

Results

We analyzed 1,443 medical records; out of those, 570 (39.5%) recorded the patients' deaths. The binary logistic regression was significant in predicting the patients' risk of death [X2(9) = 288.335; p < 0.001]. Among predictors, the most significant in relation to death risk were: age [elderly ≥65 years old; OR = 2.226 (95%CI = 1.728-2.867)]; male sex (OR = 0.754; 95%CI = 0.593-0.959); sepsis diagnosis (OR = 1.961; 95%CI = 1.481-2.595); need for elective surgery (OR = 0.469; 95%CI = 0.362-0.608); the presence of cerebrovascular accident (OR = 2.304; 95%CI = 1.502-3.534); time of hospital care (OR = 0.946; 95%CI = 0.935-0.956); hypoxemia at admission (OR = 1.635; 95%CI = 1.024-2.611), and PEEP >8 cmH2O at admission (OR = 2.153; 95%CI = 1.426-3.250).

Conclusion

The death rate of the studied intensive care unit was equivalent to that of other similar units. Regarding risk predictors, several demographic and clinical characteristics were associated with enhanced mortality in intensive care unit patients under mechanical ventilation, such as diabetes mellitus, systemic arterial hypertension, and older age. The PEEP >8 cmH2O at admission was also associated with increased mortality since this value is a marker of initially severe hypoxia.

Positive end-expiratory pressure and postoperative complications in patients with obesity: a review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

In patients with obesity, use of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) > 5 cm H₂ O (centimeters of water) has been shown to prevent intraoperative atelectasis. This study compares the rate of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) associated with PEEP > 5 cm H₂ O and PEEP ≤ 5 cm H₂ O in patients with obesity who underwent surgery under general anesthesia with mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

This study searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) using the terms "PEEP," "anesthesia," and "ventilation." Cochrane ReviewManager (RevMan) version 5 was used for data analysis. The primary outcome was a composite of PPCs, including atelectasis, pneumonia, pneumothorax, and acute respiratory failure.

RESULTS

The initial search identified 903 titles and abstracts, and 4 randomized controlled trials were included for analysis. We included a total of 2116 participants from four randomized controlled trials that compared PEEP ≤ 5 cm H₂ O with PEEP > 5 cm H₂ O in adult patients with obesity. There was no statistically significant difference in PPCs between the PEEP ≤ 5 cm H₂ O and PEEP > 5 cm H₂ O groups (risk ratio = 2.21, 95% CI: 0.41-11.83; p = 0.35). However, a significant heterogeneity was found within included studies (I²  = 53%).

CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether PEEP > 5 cm H₂ O improves the postoperative clinical outcome in patients with obesity, which is in contrast to previously established evidence that it reduces atelectasis in patients with obesity.

Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure and oxygen concentration on non-hypoxemic apnea time during face mask ventilation of anesthesia induction: A randomized controlled trial

Background: The optimal ventilatory strategy for the face mask ventilation during anesthesia induction is still unknow. Methods: We evaluated the effect of two positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels (0 cmH₂O and 6 cmH₂O) and two oxygen concentration levels (1.0 and .6) on non-hypoxemic apnea time during face mask ventilation of anesthesia induction. Sixty adult patients scheduled for elective surgery were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomized to receive anesthesia induction with four different ventilation strategy under volume-controlled ventilation. Patients assigned to the LOZP group received low fraction of inspiration O₂ (FiO₂ = .6) and 0 PEEP. Patients assigned to the LOHP group received low fraction of inspiration O₂ (FiO₂ = .6) and 6 cmH₂O PEEP. Patients assigned to the HOZP group received high fraction of inspiration O₂ (FiO₂ = 1.0) and 0 PEEP. Patients assigned to the HOHP group received high fraction of inspiration O₂ (FiO₂ = 1.0) and 6cmH₂O PEEP. After 3 min of ventilation, the patient was intubated but disconnected from the breathing circuit. Ventilation was not initiated until the pulse oximetry dropped to 90%. The primary outcome was non-hypoxemic apnea time defined as the time from cessation of ventilation to a pulse oximeter reading of 90%. The secondary outcome was the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio immediately after ventilation. Results: The non-hypoxemic apnea time was significantly longer in the group of HOHP when compared to the other three groups (192 s ± 70 s, 221 s ± 74 s, 284 s ± 101 s, and 353 s ± 85 s in the LOZP, LOHP, HOZP, and HOHP group, respectively). The PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio immediately after ventilation was significantly higher in the group of LOHP when compared to the other three groups (LOZP 393 ± 130, LOHP 496 ± 97, HOZP 335 ± 58, HOHP 391 ± 50). When compared the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio immediately after ventilation to its value before administration of anesthesia, the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio in the group of LOHP was improved, the group LOZP and HOHP remained the same, while the group HOZP significantly decreased. Conclusion: Application of PEEP and 100% of oxygen during face mask ventilation of induction could maximize the non-hypoxemic apnea time. However, the use of PEEP and 60% of oxygen during preoxygenation resulted in improved PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio.

A structured narrative review of clinical and experimental studies of the use of different positive end-expiratory pressure levels during thoracic surgery

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to present a review on the general effects of different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels during thoracic surgery by qualitatively categorizing the effects into detrimental, beneficial, and inconclusive.

DATA SOURCE

Literature search of Pubmed, CNKI, and Wanfang was made to find relative articles about PEEP levels during thoracic surgery. We used the following keywords as one-lung ventilation, PEEP, and thoracic surgery.

RESULTS

We divide the non-individualized PEEP value into five grades, that is, less than 5, 5, 5-10, 10, and more than 10 cmH₂ O, among which 5 cmH₂ O is the most commonly used in clinic at present to maintain alveolar dilatation and reduce the shunt fraction and the occurrence of atelectasis, whereas individualized PEEP, adjusted by test titration or imaging method to adapt to patients' personal characteristics, can effectively ameliorate intraoperative oxygenation and obtain optimal pulmonary compliance and better indexes relating to respiratory mechanics.

CONCLUSIONS

Available data suggest that PEEP might play an important role in one-lung ventilation, the understanding of which will help in exploring a simple and economical method to set the appropriate PEEP level.

High versus low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels for mechanically ventilated adult patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), mortality remains high. These patients require mechanical ventilation, which has been associated with ventilator-induced lung injury. High levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) could reduce this condition and improve patient survival. This is an updated version of the review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of high versus low levels of PEEP in adults with ALI and ARDS.

SEARCH METHODS

For our previous review, we searched databases from inception until 2013. For this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and the Web of Science from inception until May 2020. We also searched for ongoing trials (www.trialscentral.org; www.clinicaltrial.gov; www.controlled-trials.com), and we screened the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared high versus low levels of PEEP in ALI and ARDS participants who were intubated and mechanically ventilated in intensive care for at least 24 hours.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. We contacted investigators to identify additional published and unpublished studies. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four new studies (1343 participants) in this review update. In total, we included 10 studies (3851 participants). We found evidence of risk of bias in six studies, and the remaining studies fulfilled all criteria for low risk of bias. In eight studies (3703 participants), a comparison was made between high and low levels of PEEP, with the same tidal volume in both groups. In the remaining two studies (148 participants), the tidal volume was different between high- and low-level groups. In the main analysis, we assessed mortality occurring before hospital discharge only in studies that compared high versus low PEEP, with the same tidal volume in both groups. Evidence suggests that high PEEP may result in little to no difference in mortality compared to low PEEP (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.04; I² = 15%; 7 studies, 3640 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, high PEEP may result in little to no difference in barotrauma (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.57; I² = 63%; 9 studies, 3791 participants; low-certainty evidence). High PEEP may improve oxygenation in patients up to the first and third days of mechanical ventilation (first day: mean difference (MD) 51.03, 95% CI 35.86 to 66.20; I² = 85%; 6 studies, 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; third day: MD 50.32, 95% CI 34.92 to 65.72; I² = 83%; 6 studies, 2309 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably improves oxygenation up to the seventh day (MD 28.52, 95% CI 20.82 to 36.21; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 1611 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence suggests that high PEEP results in little to no difference in the number of ventilator-free days (MD 0.45, 95% CI -2.02 to 2.92; I² = 81%; 3 studies, 1654 participants; low-certainty evidence). Available data were insufficient to pool the evidence for length of stay in the intensive care unit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence shows that high levels compared to low levels of PEEP do not reduce mortality before hospital discharge. Low-certainty evidence suggests that high levels of PEEP result in little to no difference in the risk of barotrauma. Low-certainty evidence also suggests that high levels of PEEP improve oxygenation up to the first and third days of mechanical ventilation, and moderate-certainty evidence indicates that high levels of PEEP improve oxygenation up to the seventh day of mechanical ventilation. As in our previous review, we found clinical heterogeneity - mainly within participant characteristics and methods of titrating PEEP - that does not allow us to draw definitive conclusions regarding the use of high levels of PEEP in patients with ALI and ARDS. Further studies should aim to determine the appropriate method of using high levels of PEEP and the advantages and disadvantages associated with high levels of PEEP in different ARDS and ALI patient populations.

Lung Ultrasonography in the Monitoring of Intraoperative Recruitment Maneuvers

Introduction: Postoperative respiratory failure is a serious problem in patients who undergo general anesthesia. Approximately 90% of mechanically ventilated patients during the surgery may develop atelectasis that leads to perioperative complications. Aim: The aim of this study is to determine whether it is possible to optimize recruitment maneuvers with the use of chest ultrasonography, thus limiting the risk of respiratory complications in patients who undergo general anesthesia. Methodology: The method of incremental increases in positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) values with simultaneous continuous ultrasound assessments was employed in mechanically ventilated patients. Results: The study group comprised 100 patients. The employed method allowed for atelectasis reduction in 91.9% of patients. The PEEP necessary to reverse areas of atelectasis averaged 17cmH₂O, with an average peak pressure of 29cmH₂O. The average PEEP that prevented repeat atelectasis was 9cmH₂O. A significant improvement in lung compliance and saturation was obtained. Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided recruitment maneuvers facilitate the patient-based adjustment of the process. Consequently, the reduction in ventilation pressures necessary to aerate intraoperative atelectasis is possible, with the simultaneous reduction in the risk of procedure-related complications.

PEEP in thoracic anesthesia: pros and cons

Protective ventilation includes a strategy with low tidal volume, Plateau pressure, driving pressure, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and recruitment maneuvers on the ventilated lung. The rationale for the application of PEEP during one-lung ventilation (OLV) is that PEEP may contribute to minimize atelectrauma, preventing airway closure and alveolar collapse and improving the ventilation/perfusion to the ventilated lung. However, in case of high partial pressure of oxygen the application of PEEP may cause increased pulmonary vascular resistance, thus diverting blood flow to the non-ventilated lung, and worsening ventilation/perfusion. Further, PEEP may be associated with higher risk of hemodynamic impairment, increased need for fluids and vasoactive drugs. Positive effects on outcome have been reported by titrating PEEP according to driving pressure, targeted to obtain the optimum respiratory as well as pulmonary system compliance. This may vary according to the method employed for titration and should be performed individually for each patient. In summary, the potential for harm combined with the lack of evidence for improved outcome suggest that PEEP must be judiciously used during OLV even when titrated to a safe target, and only as much as necessary to maintain an appropriate gas exchange under low protective tidal volumes and driving pressures.

Individualized PEEP to optimise respiratory mechanics during abdominal surgery: a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Higher intraoperative driving pressures (ΔP) are associated with increased postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC). We hypothesised that dynamic adjustment of PEEP throughout abdominal surgery reduces ΔP, maintains positive end-expiratory transpulmonary pressures (P_{tp_ee}) and increases respiratory system static compliance (C_rs) with PEEP levels that are variable between and within patients.

METHODS

In a prospective multicentre pilot study, adults at moderate/high risk for PPC undergoing elective abdominal surgery were randomised to one of three ventilation protocols: (1) PEEP≤2 cm H₂O, compared with periodic recruitment manoeuvres followed by individualised PEEP to either optimise respiratory system compliance (PEEP_maxCrs) or maintain positive end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (PEEP_{Ptp_ee}). The composite primary outcome included intraoperative ΔP, P_{tp_ee}, C_rs, and PEEP values (median (interquartile range) and coefficients of variation [CV_PEEP]).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients (48.6% female; age range: 47-73 yr) were assigned to control (PEEP≤2 cm H₂O; n=13), PEEP_maxCrs (n=16), or PEEP_{Ptp_ee} (n=8) groups. The PEEP_{Ptp_ee} intervention could not be delivered in two patients. Subjects assigned to PEEP_maxCrs had lower ΔP (median8 cm H₂O [7-10]), compared with the control group (12 cm H₂O [10-15]; P=0.006). PEEP_maxCrs was also associated with higher P_{tp_ee} (2.0 cm H₂O [-0.7 to 4.5] vs controls: -8.3 cm H₂O [-13.0 to -4.0]; P≤0.001) and higher C_rs (47.7 ml cm H₂O [43.2-68.8] vs controls: 39.0 ml cm H₂O [32.9-43.4]; P=0.009). Individualised PEEP (PEEP_maxCrs and PEEP_{Ptp_ee} combined) varied widely (median: 10 cm H₂O [8-15]; CV_PEEP=0.24 [0.14-0.35]), both between, and within, subjects throughout surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study suggests that individualised PEEP management strategies applied during abdominal surgery reduce driving pressure, maintain positive P_{tp_ee} and increase static compliance. The wide range of PEEP observed suggests that an individualised approach is required to optimise respiratory mechanics during abdominal surgery.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02671721.

Comparative effects of open-lung positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and fixed PEEP on respiratory system compliance in the isoflurane anaesthetised healthy dog

This study was performed to assess the effects of open-lung positive end-expiratory pressure (OL-PEEP) following stepwise recruitment manoeuvre (RM) and those of a fixed PEEP of 5 cm H₂O without previous RM on respiratory system compliance (Crs) and selected cardiovascular variables in healthy dogs under general anaesthesia. Forty-five healthy client-owned dogs undergoing surgery were anaesthetised and mechanically ventilated (tidal volume, VT = 10-12 mL/kg; PEEP = 0 cm H₂O) for 1 min (baseline) and randomly allocated into zero positive end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP), PEEP (5 cm H₂O) and OL-PEEP treatment groups. In the OL-PEEP group, a stepwise RM was performed and the individual OL-PEEP was subsequently applied. The Crs, heart rate (HR) and non-invasive mean arterial pressure (NIMAP) were registered at baseline and then every 10 min during 60 min. In the ZEEP group, Crs decreased from baseline. In the PEEP group, Crs was not different from either baseline or ZEEP group values. In the OL-PEEP group, Crs was higher than both baseline and ZEEP group values at all time points as well as of those in the PEEP group during at least 20 min after RM. There were no differences for HR and NIMAP between groups. A clinically relevant hypotension following RM was observed in 40% of dogs. Therefore, an individually set OL-PEEP following stepwise RM improved Crs in anaesthetised healthy dogs, although transient but clinically relevant hypotension was observed during RM in some dogs. Fixed PEEP of 5 cm H₂O without previous RM did not improve Crs, although it prevented it from decreasing.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Pulmonary Complications after Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Observational Analysis of 2208 Patients at a Large Single Center

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is a minimally invasive technique for the treatment of prostate cancer. RALP requires the patient to be placed in the steep Trendelenburg position, along with pneumoperitoneum, which may increase the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). This large single-center retrospective study evaluated the incidence and risk factors of PPCs in 2208 patients who underwent RALP between 2014 and 2017. Patients were divided into those with (PPC group) and without (non-PPC group) PPCs. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess risk factors of PPCs. PPCs occurred in 682 patients (30.9%). Risk factors of PPCs included age (odds ratio [OR], 1.023; p = 0.001), body mass index (OR, 1.061; p = 0.001), hypoalbuminemia (OR, 1.653; p = 0.008), and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) application (OR, 0.283; p < 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications, rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and duration of ICU stay were significantly greater in the PPC group than in the non-PPC group. In conclusion, the incidence of PPCs in patients who underwent RALP under pneumoperitoneum in the steep Trendelenburg position was 30.9%. Factors associated with PPCs included older age, higher body mass index, hypoalbuminemia, and lack of PEEP.

Effects of lung protective ventilation on postoperative respiratory parameters in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

To investigate the effects of lung protective ventilation (LPV) compared to conventional ventilation (CV) on postoperative respiratory parameters in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). In total, 24 patients undergoing RARP were randomized to two groups receiving either LPV with a tidal volume of 6 ml/IBW with a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 10 cm H₂O (intervention) or CV with a tidal volume of 10 ml/IBW with a PEEP of 4 cmH₂O (control). Primary endpoint was PaO₂ 2 h postoperatively after 10 min of spontaneous respiration of atmospheric air. Forced expiratory volume during the first second (FEV₁), forced vital capacity (FVC), diffusion capacity (DLCO), and plasma interleukin-6 (IL-6) was measured before and after the surgery. Pulmonary complications were registered within the first year after surgery. All patients completed the study. No difference was found in PaO₂ between LPV and CV. However, 4 patients in the LPV group had a decrease in saturation below 90% during the 10 min of spontaneous respiration of atmospheric air compared to none in the CV group. FEV₁, FVC, and DLCO were similar when comparing the two groups at all timepoints and no patients in either of the groups had pulmonary complications during the first postoperative year. IL-6 levels increased during surgery in both groups, but were not significantly different between the two groups. We found no evidence of lung protective effects of LPV compared to CV estimated by pulmonary function tests, IL-6 levels and postoperative complications in patients undergoing RARP. Surprisingly, only patients in the LPV group and none in the CV group had a decline in saturation below 90% during the 10 min of breathing atmospheric air.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews regarding dental implant placement on diabetic patients: an overview of systematic reviews

Background

Since implant placement on diabetic patients still is a controversial topic and systematic reviews are at the top of scientific evidence hierarchy, a thorough assessment of the methodological quality of these reviews must be performed to inform clinicians if their conclusions and recommendations can be followed on clinical practice. An overview of systematic reviews was performed with the purpose to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews regarding dental implant placement on diabetic patients. In addition, we presented a synthesis of clinical outcomes about the focused theme.

Material and Methods

An online search was performed on MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, DARE-Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, and SIGLE via Open Grey. Searches were conducted from database inception to May 2018. Systematic review articles with or without meta-analysis about the placement of dental implants on diabetic patients were included. Exclusion criteria were: articles whose primary outcome was not the survival/success rate of dental implants on diabetic patients; studies that do not relate the survival/success rate of dental implants with diabetes; duplicated papers. Methodological quality assessment was performed with AMSTAR. A descriptive synthesis of clinical outcomes was performed.

Results

We identified 1.661 initial hits and eight articles were selected for overview (kappa=0.83; strong agreement). Six studies presented moderate methodological quality and two showed high methodological quality. Implant survival rate ranged from 31.8% to 100% and data from four meta-analysis showed that diabetes does not affect implant survival rate. On the other hand, data from two meta-analysis for marginal bone loss showed that diabetes statistically affects this outcome.

Conclusions

Two of the eight included studies presented high methodological quality and their meta-analysis showed that implant placement on diabetic patients does not affect implant survival rate and statistically affects marginal bone loss. However, clinicians must be aware that marginal bone loss values were not clinically relevant and may not be safe to follow the conclusions and recommendations of these studies.

Key words:Dental implants, diabetes, systematic review, meta-analysis, survival rate.

Application of alveolar recruitment strategy and positive end-expiratory pressure combined with autoflow in the one-lung ventilation during thoracic surgery in obese patients

Background

The present study aims to evaluate the influence of alveolar recruitment strategy (ARS) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) combined with autoflow on respiratory mechanics, the oxygen index (OI), pulmonary shut [Qs/Qt(%)], and the concentrations of IL-6 and TNF-α in venous blood after surgery in obese patients who experienced thoracic surgery with one-lung ventilation (OLV).

Methods

A total of 36 obese patients with ASAII-III degree, who experienced selective pulmonary lobectomy, were within 36-74 years old, and had a BMI of 30-40 kg/m², were randomly divided into two groups: control group (C group) and protective ventilation group (P group). In the P group, ARS was given once when OLV began. Then, ventilation at 7 mmHg of PEEP and autoflow were given. The P_peak before OLV (T₁), at 30 minutes after OLV (T₂), and at the 5 minutes after two-lung ventilation (TLV) (T₃), and the changes of P_plat and Cdyn were recorded. Then, arteriovenous blood was drawn at T₁, T₂, T₃ and T₄ (6 hours after the operation), blood-gas indicators, including SPO₂, PaCO₂ and PaO₂, were measured, and the value of Qs/Qt(%) was calculated. Afterwards, venous blood was collected at T₁ and T₅ (18 hours after surgery), and the concentrations of IL-6 and TNF-α were detected. The clinical pulmonary infection score (CPIS) was determined at the first day and seventh day after the operation.

Results

In both groups, Cdyn and OI decreased, while P_plat, P_peak and Qs/Qt(%) increased (P<0.05) at T₂, when compared with those at T₁. At T₂ and T₃, P_plat and P_peak decreased (P<0.05) in the P group, when compared with the C group. At T₂, T₃ and T₄, OI increased (P<0.05) in the P group, when compared with the C group. At T₂, T₃ and T₄, PaCO₂ and Qs/Qt(%) decreased in the P group, when compared with the C group. The concentrations of IL-6 and TNF-α decreased in the P group, when compared with the C group.

Conclusions

The ventilation model of ARS and PEEP combined with autoflow can better reduce airway pressure and the production of injurious inflammatory cytokines in blood in obese patients. Furthermore, it can reduce Qs/Qt during and at 6 hours after thoracotomy, improve OI and maintain the acid-base balance of the internal environment, which may be applied in clinical work. This brings new enlightenment and needs to be clarified through further studies.

Positive end-expiratory pressure improves elastic working pressure in anesthetized children

Background

Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has been demonstrated to decrease ventilator-induced lung injury in patients under mechanical ventilation (MV) for acute respiratory failure. Recently, some studies have proposed some beneficial effects of PEEP in ventilated patients without lung injury. The influence of PEEP on respiratory mechanics in children is not well known. Our aim was to determine the effects on respiratory mechanics of setting PEEP at 5 cmH₂O in anesthetized healthy children.

Methods

Patients younger than 15 years old without history of lung injury scheduled for elective surgery gave informed consent and were enrolled in the study. After usual care for general anesthesia, patients were placed on volume controlled MV. Two sets of respiratory mechanics studies were performed using inspiratory and expiratory breath hold, with PEEP 0 and 5 cmH₂O. The maximum inspiratory and expiratory flow (Q_I and Q_E) as well as peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), plateau pressure (P_PL) and total PEEP (tPEEP) were measured. Respiratory system compliance (C_RS), inspiratory and expiratory resistances (RawI and RawE) and time constants (K_TI and K_TE) were calculated. Data were expressed as median and interquartile range (IQR). Wilcoxon sign test and Spearman’s analysis were used. Significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

We included 30 patients, median age 39 (15–61.3) months old, 60% male. When PEEP increased, PIP increased from 12 (11,14) to 15.5 (14,18), and C_RS increased from 0.9 (0.9,1.2) to 1.2 (0.9,1.4) mL·kg^− 1·cmH₂O^− 1; additionally, when PEEP increased, driving pressure decreased from 6.8 (5.9,8.1) to 5.8 (4.7,7.1) cmH₂O, and Q_E decreased from 13.8 (11.8,18.7) to 11.7 (9.1,13.5) L·min^− 1 (all P < 0.01). There were no significant changes in resistance and Q_I.

Conclusions

Analysis of respiratory mechanics in anesthetized healthy children shows that PEEP at 5 cmH₂O places the respiratory system in a better position in the P/V curve. A better understanding of lung mechanics may lead to changes in the traditional ventilatory approach, limiting injury associated with MV.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0611-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Intraoperative use of low volume ventilation to decrease postoperative mortality, mechanical ventilation, lengths of stay and lung injury in adults without acute lung injury

BACKGROUND

Since the 2000s, there has been a trend towards decreasing tidal volumes for positive pressure ventilation during surgery. This an update of a review first published in 2015, trying to determine if lower tidal volumes are beneficial or harmful for patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit of intraoperative use of low tidal volume ventilation (less than 10 mL/kg of predicted body weight) compared with high tidal volumes (10 mL/kg or greater) to decrease postoperative complications in adults without acute lung injury.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (from 1946 to 19 May 2017), Embase (OvidSP) (from 1974 to 19 May 2017) and six trial registries. We screened the reference lists of all studies retained and of recent meta-analysis related to the topic during data extraction. We also screened conference proceedings of anaesthesiology societies, published in two major anaesthesiology journals. The search was rerun 3 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of low tidal volumes (defined as less than 10 mL/kg) on any of our selected outcomes in adults undergoing any type of surgery. We did not retain studies with participants requiring one-lung ventilation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the quality of the retained studies with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed data with both fixed-effect (I² statistic less than 25%) or random-effects (I² statistic greater than 25%) models based on the degree of heterogeneity. When there was an effect, we calculated a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) using the odds ratio. When there was no effect, we calculated the optimum information size.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven new RCTs (536 participants) in the update.In total, we included 19 studies in the review (776 participants in the low tidal volume group and 772 in the high volume group). There are four studies awaiting classification and three are ongoing. All included studies were at some risk of bias. Participants were scheduled for abdominal surgery, heart surgery, pulmonary thromboendarterectomy, spinal surgery and knee surgery. Low tidal volumes used in the studies varied from 6 mL/kg to 8.1 mL/kg while high tidal volumes varied from 10 mL/kg to 12 mL/kg.Based on 12 studies including 1207 participants, the effects of low volume ventilation on 0- to 30-day mortality were uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.53; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Based on seven studies including 778 participants, lower tidal volumes probably reduced postoperative pneumonia (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.82; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB 24, 95% CI 16 to 160), and it probably reduced the need for non-invasive postoperative ventilatory support based on three studies including 506 participants (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.64; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB 13, 95% CI 11 to 24). Based on 11 studies including 957 participants, low tidal volumes during surgery probably decreased the need for postoperative invasive ventilatory support (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.77; I² = 0%; NNTB 39, 95% CI 30 to 166; moderate-quality evidence). Based on five studies including 898 participants, there may be little or no difference in the intensive care unit length of stay (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.10; I² = 33%; low-quality evidence). Based on 14 studies including 1297 participants, low tidal volumes may have reduced hospital length of stay by about 0.8 days (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; I² = 27%; low-quality evidence). Based on five studies including 708 participants, the effects of low volume ventilation on barotrauma (pneumothorax) were uncertain (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.99; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-quality evidence that low tidal volumes (defined as less than 10 mL/kg) decreases pneumonia and the need for postoperative ventilatory support (invasive and non-invasive). We found no difference in the risk of barotrauma (pneumothorax), but the number of participants included does not allow us to make definitive statement on this. The four studies in 'Studies awaiting classification' may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

Postoperative Pulmonary Complications, Early Mortality, and Hospital Stay Following Noncardiothoracic Surgery: A Multicenter Study by the Perioperative Research Network Investigators

Importance

Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), a leading cause of poor surgical outcomes, are heterogeneous in their pathophysiology, severity, and reporting accuracy.

Objective

To prospectively study clinical and radiological PPCs and respiratory insufficiency therapies in a high-risk surgical population.

Design, Setting, and Participants

We performed a multicenter prospective observational study in 7 US academic institutions. American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 3 patients who presented for noncardiothoracic surgery requiring 2 hours or more of general anesthesia with mechanical ventilation from May to November 2014 were included in the study. We hypothesized that PPCs, even mild, would be associated with early postoperative mortality and use of hospital resources. We analyzed their association with modifiable perioperative variables.

Exposure

Noncardiothoracic surgery.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Predefined PPCs occurring within the first 7 postoperative days were prospectively identified. We used bivariable and logistic regression analyses to study the association of PPCs with ventilatory and other perioperative variables.

Results

This study included 1202 patients who underwent predominantly abdominal, orthopedic, and neurological procedures. The mean (SD) age of patients was 62.1 (13.8) years, and 636 (52.9%) were men. At least 1 PPC occurred in 401 patients (33.4%), mainly the need for prolonged oxygen therapy by nasal cannula (n = 235; 19.6%) and atelectasis (n = 206; 17.1%). Patients with 1 or more PPCs, even mild, had significantly increased early postoperative mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and ICU/hospital length of stay. Significant PPC risk factors included nonmodifiable (emergency [yes vs no]: odds ratio [OR], 4.47, 95% CI, 1.59-12.56; surgical site [abdominal/pelvic vs nonabdominal/pelvic]: OR, 2.54, 95% CI, 1.67-3.89; and age [in years]: OR, 1.03, 95% CI, 1.02-1.05) and potentially modifiable (colloid administration [yes vs no]: OR, 1.75, 95% CI, 1.03-2.97; preoperative oxygenation: OR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; blood loss [in milliliters]: OR, 1.17, 95% CI, 1.05-1.30; anesthesia duration [in minutes]: OR, 1.14, 95% CI, 1.05-1.24; and tidal volume [in milliliters per kilogram of predicted body weight]: OR, 1.12, 95% CI, 1.01-1.24) factors.

Conclusions and Relevance

Postoperative pulmonary complications are common in patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 3, despite current protective ventilation practices. Even mild PPCs are associated with increased early postoperative mortality, ICU admission, and length of stay (ICU and hospital). Mild frequent PPCs (eg, atelectasis and prolonged oxygen therapy need) deserve increased attention and intervention for improving perioperative outcomes.

Differential Effects of Intraoperative Positive End-expiratory Pressure (PEEP) on Respiratory Outcome in Major Abdominal Surgery Versus Craniotomy

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we examined whether (1) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has a protective effect on the risk of major postoperative respiratory complications in a cohort of patients undergoing major abdominal surgeries and craniotomies, and (2) the effect of PEEP is differed by surgery type.

BACKGROUND

Protective mechanical ventilation with lower tidal volumes and PEEP reduces compounded postoperative complications after abdominal surgery. However, data regarding the use of intraoperative PEEP is conflicting.

METHODS

In this observational study, we included 5915 major abdominal surgery patients and 5063 craniotomy patients. Analysis was performed using multivariable logistic regression. The primary outcome was a composite of major postoperative respiratory complications (respiratory failure, reintubation, pulmonary edema, and pneumonia) within 3 days of surgery.

RESULTS

Within the entire study population (major abdominal surgeries and craniotomies), we found an association between application of PEEP ≥5 cmH2O and a decreased risk of postoperative respiratory complications compared with PEEP <5 cmH2O. Application of PEEP >5 cmH2O was associated with a significant lower odds of respiratory complications in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery (odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.39 - 0.72), effects that translated to deceased hospital length of stay [median hospital length of stay : 6 days (4-9 days), incidence rate ratios for each additional day: 0.91 (0.84 - 0.98)], whereas PEEP >5 cmH2O was not significantly associated with reduced odds of respiratory complications or hospital length of stay in patients undergoing craniotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The protective effects of PEEP are procedure specific with meaningful effects observed in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Our data suggest that default mechanical ventilator settings should include PEEP of 5-10 cmH2O during major abdominal surgery.

Perioperative lung protective ventilation in obese patients

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.