Exploring for the safer ventilation method in laparoscopic urologic patients? Conventional or low tidal?

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.

Exploring the intraoperative lung protective ventilation of different positive end-expiratory pressure levels during abdominal laparoscopic surgery with Trendelenburg position

Background

The intraoperative lung protective effect of mechanical ventilation of different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels on patients undergoing abdominal laparoscopic surgery with the steep Trendelenburg position remains undefined. The purpose of the study was to explore the optimal PEEP.

Methods

Sixty patients scheduled for abdominal laparoscopic surgery were randomized to four groups including: PEEP 0, 4, 8 and 12 cmH₂O. The pulmonary dynamic compliance (Cdyn), dead space to tidal volume ratio (VD/VT), and intrapulmonary shunt ratio (QS/QT) were measured after anesthesia induction (T₀), 5 min after pneumoperitoneum (PNP) with position change (T₁), 30 (T₂) and 60 min (T₃) after PEEP, and end of surgery (T₄).

Results

Cdyn increased when different levels of PEEP (including the 4, 8, and 12 cmH₂O) were used vs. no PEEP (P<0.05). The VD/VT in PEEP 8 and 12 cmH₂O were significantly improved than no PEEP (P<0.05). Meanwhile, the QS/QT in PEEP 12 cmH₂O was higher than others during the procedures.

Conclusions

A moderate PEEP level (8 cmH₂O) with low tidal volume was sufficient to improve Cdyn and to decrease VD/VT without increasing QS/QT, which was suggested to be a good choice of intraoperative lung protective ventilation during abdominal laparoscopic surgery with Trendelenburg position.

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.

Application of intraoperative lung-protective ventilation varies in accordance with the knowledge of anaesthesiologists: a single-Centre questionnaire study and a retrospective observational study

Background

The benefits of lung-protective ventilation (LPV) with a low tidal volume (6 mL/kg of ideal body weight [IBW]), limited plateau pressure (< 28–30 cm H₂O), and appropriate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome have become apparent and it is now widely adopted in intensive care units. Recently evidence for LPV in general anaesthesia has been accumulated, but it is not yet generally applied by anaesthesiologists in the operating room.

Methods

This study investigated the perception about intraoperative LPV among 82 anaesthesiologists through a questionnaire survey and identified the differences in ventilator settings according to recognition of lung-protective ventilation. Furthermore, we investigated the changes in the trend for using this form of ventilation during general anaesthesia in the past 10 years.

Results

Anaesthesiologists who had received training in LPV were more knowledgeable about this approach. Anaesthesiologists with knowledge of the concept behind LPV strategies applied a lower tidal volume (median (IQR [range]), 8.2 (8.0–9.2 [7.1–10.3]) vs. 9.2 (9.1–10.1 [7.6–10.1]) mL/kg; p = 0.033) and used PEEP more frequently (69/72 [95.8%] vs. 5/8 [62.5%]; p = 0.012; odds ratio, 13.8 [2.19–86.9]) for laparoscopic surgery than did those without such knowledge. Anaesthesiologists who were able to answer a question related to LPV correctly (respondents who chose ‘height’ to a multiple choice question asking what variables should be considered most important in the initial setting of tidal volume) applied a lower tidal volume in cases of laparoscopic surgery and obese patients. There was an increase in the number of patients receiving LPV (V_T < 10 mL/kgIBW and PEEP ≥5 cm H₂O) between 2004 and 2014 (0/818 [0.0%] vs. 280/818 [34.2%]; p <  0.001).

Conclusions

Our study suggests that the knowledge of LPV is directly related to its implementation, and can explain the increase in LPV use in general anaesthesia. Further studies should assess the impact of using intraoperative LPV on clinical outcomes and should determine the efficacy of education on intraoperative LPV implementation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0495-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Intraoperative low tidal volume ventilation strategy has no benefits during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background and Aims:

Benefits of intraoperative low tidal volume ventilation during laparoscopic surgery are not conclusively proven, even though its advantages were seen in other situations with intraoperative respiratory compromise such as one-lung ventilation. The present study compared the efficacy of intraoperative low tidal volume ventilatory strategy (6 ml/kg along with positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] of 10 cmH₂O) versus one with higher tidal volume (10 ml/kg with no PEEP) on various clinical parameters and plasma levels of interleukin (IL)-6 in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Material and Methods:

A total of 58 adult patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to receive the low or higher tidal volume strategy as above (n = 29 each). The primary outcome measure was postoperative PaO₂. Systemic levels of IL-6 along with clinical indices of intraoperative gas exchange, pulmonary mechanics, and hemodynamic consequences were measured as secondary outcome measures.

Results:

There was no statistically significant difference in oxygenation; intraoperative dynamic compliance, peak airway pressures, or hemodynamic parameters, or the IL-6 levels between the two groups (P > 0.05). Low tidal volume strategy was associated with significantly higher mean airway pressure, lower airway resistance, greater respiratory rates, and albeit clinically similar, higher PaCO₂and lower pH (P < 0.05).

Conclusion:

Strategy using 6 ml/kg tidal volume along with 10 cmH₂O of PEEP was not associated with any significant improvement in gas exchange, hemodynamic parameters, or systemic inflammatory response over ventilation with 10 ml/kg volume without PEEP during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

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

BACKGROUND

During the last decade, there has been a trend towards decreasing tidal volumes for positive pressure ventilation during surgery. It is not known whether this new trend is beneficial or harmful for patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit of intraoperative use of low tidal volume ventilation (< 10 mL/kg of predicted body weight) to decrease postoperative complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (from 1946 to 5 September 2014) and EMBASE (OvidSP) (from 1974 to 5 September 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of low tidal volumes (defined as < 10 mL/kg) on any of our selected outcomes in adult participants 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 (I(2) statistic < 25%) or random-effects (I(2) statistic > 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 optimal size information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies in the review. In total these studies detailed 1012 participants (499 participants in the low tidal volume group and 513 in the high volume group). All studies included were at risk of bias as defined by the Cochrane tool. Based on nine studies including 899 participants, we found no difference in 0- to 30-day mortality between low and high tidal volume groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.54; I(2) statistic 0%; low quality evidence). Based on four studies including 601 participants undergoing abdominal or spinal surgery, we found a lower incidence of postoperative pneumonia in the lower tidal volume group (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.99; I(2) statistic 19%; moderate quality evidence; NNTB 19, 95% CI 14 to 169). Based on two studies including 428 participants, low tidal volumes decreased the need for non-invasive postoperative ventilatory support (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.64; moderate quality evidence; NNTB 11, 95% CI 9 to 19). Based on eight studies including 814 participants, low tidal volumes during surgery decreased the need for postoperative invasive ventilatory support (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80; I(2) statistic 0%; NNTB 36, 95% CI 27 to 202; moderate quality evidence). Based on three studies including 650 participants, we found no difference in the intensive care unit length of stay (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.20; I(2) statistic = 42%; moderate quality evidence). Based on eight studies including 846 participants, we did not find a difference in hospital length of stay (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.07; I(2) statistic 52%; moderate quality evidence). A meta-regression showed that the effect size increased proportionally to the peak pressure measured at the end of surgery in the high volume group. We did not find a difference in the risk of pneumothorax (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.51 to 7.95; I(2) statistic 0%; low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low tidal volumes (defined as < 10 mL/kg) should be used preferentially during surgery. They decrease the need for postoperative ventilatory support (invasive and non-invasive). Further research is required to determine the maximum peak pressure of ventilation that should be allowed during surgery.