Continuous positive airway pressure combined with small-tidal-volume ventilation on arterial oxygenation and pulmonary shunt during one-lung ventilation in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: A randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

One-lung ventilation (OLV) is frequently applied during video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) airway management to collapse and isolate the nondependent lung (NL). OLV can give rise to hypoxemia as a result of the pulmonary shunting produced. Our study aimed to assess the influence of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) combined with small-tidal-volume ventilation on improving arterial oxygenation and decreasing pulmonary shunt rate (QS/QT) without compromising surgical field exposure during OLV.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients undergoing scheduled VATS lobectomy were enrolled in this research and allocated into three groups at random: C group (conventional ventilation, no NL ventilation intervention was performed), LP group (NL was ventilated with lower CPAP [2 cmH2O] and a 40-60 mL tidal volume [TV]), and HP group (NL was ventilated with higher CPAP [5 cmH2O] and a 60-80 mL TV). Record the blood gas analysis data and calculate the QS/QT at the following time: at the beginning of the OLV (T0), 30 min after OLV (T1), and 60 min after OLV (T2). Surgeons blinded to ventilation techniques were invited to evaluate the surgical fields.

RESULTS

The demography data of the three groups were consistent with the surgical data. At T1, PaO2 in the HP group was substantially higher compared to the C group (P < 0.05), while there was no significant difference in the LP group (P > 0.05). At T1-T2, PaCO2 in the LP and HP groups was significantly less than that in the C group (P < 0.05). At T1, the QS/QT values of groups C, LP, and HP were 29.54 ± 6.89%, 22.66 ± 2.08%, and 19.64 ± 5.76%, respectively, and the QS/QT values in the LP and HP groups markedly reduced (P < 0.01). The surgical field's evaluation by the surgeon among the three groups was not notable (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

CPAP combined with small-tidal-volume ventilation effectively improved arterial oxygenation and reduced QS/QT and PaCO2 without compromising surgical field exposure during OLV. Among them, 5 cmH2O CPAP + 60-80 ml TV ventilation had a better effect on improving oxygenation.

Routine postoperative noninvasive respiratory support and pneumonia after elective surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pulmonary complications, including pneumonia, are a substantial cause of morbidity. We hypothesised that routine noninvasive respiratory support was associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia after surgery.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the routine use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), or high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) against standard postoperative care in the adult population. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and CENTRAL from the start of indexing to July 27, 2021. Articles were reviewed and data extracted in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by a senior investigator. The primary outcome was pneumonia, and the secondary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications. We calculated risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

From 18 513 records, we included 38 trials consisting of 9782 patients. Pneumonia occurred in 214/4403 (4.9%) patients receiving noninvasive respiratory support compared with 216/3937 (5.5%) receiving standard care (RD -0.01 [95% confidence interval: -0.02 to 0.00]; I²=8%; P=0.23). Postoperative pulmonary complications occurred in 393/1379 (28%) patients receiving noninvasive respiratory support compared with 280/902 (31%) receiving standard care (RD -0.11 [-0.23 to 0.01]; I²=79%; P=0.07). Subgroup analyses did not identify a benefit of CPAP, NIV, or HFNO in preventing pneumonia. Tests for publication bias suggest six unreported trials.

CONCLUSION

The results of this evidence synthesis do not support the routine use of postoperative CPAP, NIV, or HFNO to prevent pneumonia after surgery in adults.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42019156741.

The effect of immediate postoperative Boussignac CPAP on adverse pulmonary events after thoracic surgery: A multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of prophylactic continuous positive pressure ventilation (CPAP) after thoracic surgery is not clearly established.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of CPAP immediately after lung resection either by thoracotomy or thoracoscopy in preventing atelectasis and pneumonia.

DESIGN

A multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label trial.

SETTINGS

Four large University hospitals at Madrid (Spain) from March 2014 to December 2016.

PATIENTS

Immunocompetent patients scheduled for lung resection, without previous diagnosis of sleep-apnoea syndrome or severe bullous emphysema. Four hundred and sixty-four patients were assessed, 426 were randomised and 422 were finally analysed.

INTERVENTION

Six hours of continuous CPAP through a Boussignac system versus standard care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome: incidence of the composite endpoint 'atelectasis + pneumonia'. Secondary outcome: incidence of the composite endpoint 'persistent air leak + pneumothorax'.

RESULTS

The primary outcome occurred in 35 patients (17%) of the CPAP group and in 58 (27%) of the control group [adjusted relative risk (ARR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.93]. The secondary outcome occurred in 33 patients (16%) of the CPAP group and in 29 (14%) of the control group [ARR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.65].

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic CPAP decreased the incidence of the composite endpoint 'postoperative atelectasis + pneumonia' without increasing the incidence of the endpoint 'postoperative persistent air leaks + pneumothorax'.

Recommendations from the Italian intersociety consensus on Perioperative Anesthesa Care in Thoracic surgery (PACTS) part 2: intraoperative and postoperative care

Introduction

Anesthetic care in patients undergoing thoracic surgery presents specific challenges that require a multidisciplinary approach to management. There remains a need for standardized, evidence-based, continuously updated guidelines for perioperative care in these patients.

Methods

A multidisciplinary expert group, the Perioperative Anesthesia in Thoracic Surgery (PACTS) group, was established to develop recommendations for anesthesia practice in patients undergoing elective lung resection for lung cancer. The project addressed three key areas: preoperative patient assessment and preparation, intraoperative management (surgical and anesthesiologic care), and postoperative care and discharge. A series of clinical questions was developed, and literature searches were performed to inform discussions around these areas, leading to the development of 69 recommendations. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria.

Results

Recommendations for intraoperative care focus on airway management, and monitoring of vital signs, hemodynamics, blood gases, neuromuscular blockade, and depth of anesthesia. Recommendations for postoperative care focus on the provision of multimodal analgesia, intensive care unit (ICU) care, and specific measures such as chest drainage, mobilization, noninvasive ventilation, and atrial fibrillation prophylaxis.

Conclusions

These recommendations should help clinicians to improve intraoperative and postoperative management, and thereby achieve better postoperative outcomes in thoracic surgery patients. Further refinement of the recommendations can be anticipated as the literature continues to evolve.

Adding positive airway pressure to mobilisation and respiratory techniques hastens pleural drainage: a randomised trial

QUESTIONS

In patients with a collection of fluid in the pleural space, do mobilisation and respiratory techniques: shorten the drainage period and length of hospital stay; improve respiratory function and oxygenation; and prevent pulmonary complications? Does the addition of positive airway pressure to this regimen further improve the effects?

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial with three intervention arms, concealed allocation, intention-to-treat analysis and blinded assessment.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and fifty-six inpatients with a fluid collection in the pleural space and with chest drainage in situ.

INTERVENTION

Participants received usual care and were randomly assigned to: a control group that also received sham positive airway pressure (4 cmH₂O) only (Con); an experimental group that received incentive spirometry, airway clearance, mobilisation and the same sham positive pressure (Exp1); or an experimental group that received the Exp1 regimen except that the positive airway pressure was 15 cmH₂O (Exp2). Treatments were provided three times per day for 7 days.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Days of chest tube drainage, length of hospital stay, pulmonary complications and adverse events were recorded until hospital discharge. Costs in each group were estimated.

RESULTS

The Exp2 group had shorter duration of chest tube drainage and length of hospital stay compared with the Exp1 and Con groups. In addition, the Exp2 group had less antibiotic use (18% versus 43% versus 55%) and pneumonia incidence (0% versus 16% versus 20%) compared with the Exp1 and Con groups (all p < 0.01). The groups had similar rates of adverse events (10% versus 2% versus 6%, p > 0.05). Total treatment costs were lower in the Exp2 group than in the Exp1 and Con groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with a fluid collection in the pleural space, the addition of positive pressure to mobilisation and respiratory techniques decreased the duration of thoracic drainage, length of hospital stay, pulmonary complications, antibiotic use and treatment costs.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT02246946.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for prevention of complications after pulmonary resection in lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary complications are often seen during the postoperative period following lung resection for patients with lung cancer. Some situations such as intubation, a long stay in the intensive care unit, the high cost of antibiotics and mortality may be avoided with the prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is widely used in hospitals, and is thought to reduce the number of pulmonary complications and mortality after this type of surgery. Therefore, a systematic review is needed to critically assess the benefits and harms of NIPPV for patients undergoing lung resection. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of NIPPV for preventing complications in patients following pulmonary resection for lung cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and PEDro until 21 December 2018, to identify potentially eligible trials. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches. We searched the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field for information about additional published and unpublished studies. We also searched the Register of Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov) to identify ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials that compared NIPPV in the immediate postoperative period after pulmonary resection with no intervention or conventional respiratory therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors collected data and assessed trial risk of bias. Where possible, we pooled data from the individual studies using a fixed-effect model (quantitative synthesis), but where this was not possible we tabulated or presented the data in the main text (qualitative synthesis). Where substantial heterogeneity existed, we applied a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 190 references retrieved from the searches, 7 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) (1 identified with the new search) and 1 quasi-randomised trial fulfilled the eligibility criteria for this review, including a total of 486 patients. Five studies described quantitative measures of pulmonary complications, with pooled data showing no difference between NIPPV compared with no intervention (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.47). Three studies reported intubation rates and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.20). Five studies reported measures of mortality on completion of the intervention period. There was no statistical difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.53). Similar results were observed in the subgroup analysis considering ventilatory mode (bi-level versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). No study evaluated the postoperative use of antibiotics. Two studies reported the length of intensive care unit stay and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (MD -0.75; 95% CI -3.93 to 2.43). Four studies reported the length of hospital stay and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (MD -0.12; 95% CI -6.15 to 5.90). None of the studies described any complications related to NIPPV. Of the seven included studies, four studies were considered as 'low risk of bias' in all domains, two studies were considered 'high risk of bias' for the allocation concealment domain, and one of these was also considered 'high risk of bias' for random sequence generation. One other study was considered 'high risk of bias' for including participants with more severe disease. The new study identified could not be included in the meta-analysis as its intervention differed from the other studies (use of pre and postoperative NIPPV in the same population).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated that there was no additional benefit of using NIPPV in the postoperative period after pulmonary resection for all outcomes analysed (pulmonary complications, rate of intubation, mortality, postoperative consumption of antibiotics, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay and adverse effects related to NIPPV). However, the quality of evidence is 'very low', 'low' and 'moderate' since there were few studies, with small sample size and low frequency of outcomes. New well-designed and well-conducted randomised trials are needed to answer the questions of this review with greater certainty.

Postoperative chest ultrasound findings and effectiveness after thoracic surgery: A pilot study

The aim of this study was to analyze the information from post-operative chest ultrasound (CU) to evaluate the possibility to use this method instead of chest X-ray (CXR) after thoracic surgery. Patients who underwent thoracic surgery were evaluated with CU blinded to CXR after surgery, deciding if it was useful or CU was exhaustive. Twenty-four patients were enrolled prospectively. The CU allowed a further discrimination of the lung abnormalities, discriminating between atelectasis, infections or hematoma. CXR was required in only 5 cases due to the presence of massive subcutaneous emphysema or absence of lung point. In the remaining 19 cases, CU was considered exhaustive and effective. In particular, CU was considered exhaustive in 67% of cases after open surgery and in 85% of cases after video-assisted thoracic surgery. In conclusion, CU appears to be effective in post-operative management after thoracic surgery and it can increase the diagnostic accuracy reducing any unnecessary X-ray exposure.

Prophylactic continuous positive airway pressure after pulmonary lobectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Despite advances in perioperative care and surgical techniques, patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy are still at high risk for postoperative complications. Among interventions expected to reduce complications, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a discussed option. This trial aims to test the hypothesis whether prophylactic application of CPAP following pulmonary lobectomy can reduce postoperative complications.

Methods

The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Patients with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer scheduled for pulmonary lobectomy were eligible and were trained for the use of CPAP interface. The control group received standard postoperative pain management and physiotherapy; in addition, the study group received CPAP (PEEP 8-12 cmH₂O, 2 hours thrice daily for three days).

Results

After the appropriate selection, 163 patients were considered for the analysis: 82 patients constituted the control group, 81 the study group. The two groups were substantially comparable for preoperative parameters. The rate of postoperative complications was lower in the study group (24.7% vs. 43.9%; P=0.015) as well as the hospital stay (6 vs. 7 days; P=0.031). The stepwise logistic regression model identified: CPAP [odd ratio (OR): 0.3026, CI: 0.1389-0.6591], smoke habits [OR: 2.5835, confidence interval (CI): 1.0331-6.4610] and length of surgery in minutes (OR: 1.0102, CI: 1.0042-1.0163) as regressors on postoperative complications.

Conclusions

The present trial demonstrated that prophylactic application of CPAP during the postoperative period after pulmonary lobectomy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer was effective in prevent postoperative complications.

The Society for Translational Medicine: clinical practice guidelines for mechanical ventilation management for patients undergoing lobectomy

Patients undergoing lobectomy are at significantly increased risk of lung injury. One-lung ventilation is the most commonly used technique to maintain ventilation and oxygenation during the operation. It is a challenge to choose an appropriate mechanical ventilation strategy to minimize the lung injury and other adverse clinical outcomes. In order to understand the available evidence, a systematic review was conducted including the following topics: (I) protective ventilation (PV); (II) mode of mechanical ventilation [e.g., volume controlled (VCV) versus pressure controlled (PCV)]; (III) use of therapeutic hypercapnia; (IV) use of alveolar recruitment (open-lung) strategy; (V) pre-and post-operative application of positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP); (VI) Inspired Oxygen concentration; (VII) Non-intubated thoracoscopic lobectomy; and (VIII) adjuvant pharmacologic options. The recommendations of class II are non-intubated thoracoscopic lobectomy may be an alternative to conventional one-lung ventilation in selected patients. The recommendations of class IIa are: (I) Therapeutic hypercapnia to maintain a partial pressure of carbon dioxide at 50-70 mmHg is reasonable for patients undergoing pulmonary lobectomy with one-lung ventilation; (II) PV with a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg and PEEP of 5 cmH₂O are reasonable methods, based on current evidence; (III) alveolar recruitment [open lung ventilation (OLV)] may be beneficial in patients undergoing lobectomy with one-lung ventilation; (IV) PCV is recommended over VCV for patients undergoing lung resection; (V) pre- and post-operative CPAP can improve short-term oxygenation in patients undergoing lobectomy with one-lung ventilation; (VI) controlled mechanical ventilation with I:E ratio of 1:1 is reasonable in patients undergoing one-lung ventilation; (VII) use of lowest inspired oxygen concentration to maintain satisfactory arterial oxygen saturation is reasonable based on physiologic principles; (VIII) Adjuvant drugs such as nebulized budesonide, intravenous sivelestat and ulinastatin are reasonable and can be used to attenuate inflammatory response.

External validation in an intermediate unit of a respiratory decompensation model trained in an intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Preventing urgent intubation and upgrade in level of care in patients with subclinical deterioration could be of great utility in hospitalized patients. Early detection should result in decreased mortality, duration of stay, and/or resource use. The goal of this study was to externally validate a previously developed, vital sign-based, intensive care unit, respiratory instability model on a separate population, intermediate care patients.

METHODS

From May 2014 to May 2016, the model calculated relative risk of adverse events every 15 minutes (n = 373,271 observations) for 2,050 patients in a surgical intermediate care unit.

RESULTS

We identified 167 upgrades and 57 intubations. The performance of the model for predicting upgrades within 12 hours was highly significant with an area under the curve of 0.693 (95% confidence interval, 0.658-0.724). The model was well calibrated with relative risks in the highest and lowest deciles of 2.99 and 0.45, respectively (a 6.6-fold increase). The model was effective at predicting intubation, with a demonstrated area under the curve within 12 hours of the event of 0.748 (95% confidence interval, 0.685-0.800). The highest and lowest deciles of observed relative risk were 3.91 and 0.39, respectively (a 10.1-fold increase). Univariate analysis of vital signs showed that transfer upgrades were associated, in order of importance, with rising respiration rate, rising heart rate, and falling pulse-oxygen saturation level.

CONCLUSION

The respiratory instability model developed previously is valid in intermediate care patients to predict both urgent intubations and requirements for upgrade in level of care to an intensive care unit.

Efficacy and safety of noninvasive ventilation in patients after cardiothoracic surgery: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is a promising therapeutic strategy after cardiothoracic surgery. This study aimed to meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of NIV as compared to conventional management after cardiothoracic surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NIV with conventional management after cardiothoracic surgery. Relative risk (RR), standard mean difference (SMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to measure the efficacy and safety of NIV using random-effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Q statistic.

RESULTS

This study included 14 RCTs (1740 patients) for the evaluation of efficacy and safety of NIV as compared to conventional management after cardiothoracic surgery. Overall, NIV had minimal effect on the risk of mortality (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.36-1.14; P = 0.127), endotracheal intubation (RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.24-1.11; P = 0.090), respiratory (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.47-1.30; P = 0.340), cardiovascular (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.54-1.22; P = 0.306), renal (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.26-1.92; P = 0.491), and other complications (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.38-1.36; P = 0.305), respiratory rate (SMD: -0.10; 95% CI: -1.21-1.01; P = 0.862), heart rate (SMD: -0.27; 95% CI: -0.76-0.22; P = 0.288), PaO2/FiO2 ratio (SMD: 0.34; 95% CI: -0.17-0.85; P = 0.194), PaCO2 (SMD: 0.83; 95% CI: -0.12-1.77; P = 0.087), systolic pressure (SMD: -0.04; 95% CI: -0.25-0.17; P = 0.700), pH (SMD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.44-0.43; P = 0.974), length of ICU stay (SMD: -0.19; 95% CI: -0.47-0.08; P = 0.171), and hospital stay (SMD: -0.31; 95% CI: -1.00-0.38; P = 0.373). Sensitivity analysis showed that NIV was associated with higher levels of PaO2/FiO2 ratio (SMD: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.00-1.05; P = 0.048) and lower risk of endotracheal intubation (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.22-0.66; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

As compared to conventional management, the use of NIV after cardiothoracic surgery improved patient's oxygenation and decreased the need for endotracheal intubation, without significant complications.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for prevention of complications after pulmonary resection in lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary complications are often observed during the postoperative period of lung resection for patients with lung cancer. Some conditions such as intubation, a long stay in the intensive care unit, the high cost of antibiotics and mortality may be avoided with the prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is widely accepted and often used in hospitals, and may reduce the number of pulmonary complications and mortality after this type of surgery. Therefore, a systematic review is required to map and critically assess the benefits and harms of NIPPV for patients undergoing lung resection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of NIPPV for preventing complications in patients who underwent pulmonary resection for lung cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and PEDro, to identify potentially eligible trials. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches. The databases were last searched on 17 March 2015. We searched the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field for information about additional published and unpublished studies. We also searched the Register of Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com) and ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov) to identify ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials that compared NIPPV in the immediate postoperative period after pulmonary resection with no intervention or conventional respiratory therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors collected data and assessed trial risk of bias. Where possible, we pooled data from the individual studies using a fixed-effect model (quantitative synthesis), but where this was not possible we tabulated or presented the data in the main text (qualitative synthesis). Where substantial heterogeneity existed, we applied a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 155 references retrieved from searches, 6 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and 1 quasi-randomised trial fulfilled the eligibility criteria for this review, including a total of 436 patients. Five studies described quantitative measures of pulmonary complications, with pooled data showing no difference between NIPPV compared with no intervention (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.47). Three studies reported intubation rates and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.20). Five studies reported measures of mortality on completion of the intervention period. There was no statistical difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.53). Similar results were observed in the subgroup analysis considering ventilatory mode (bi-level versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). No study evaluated the postoperative consumption of antibiotics. Two studies reported the length of intensive care unit stay and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (MD -0.75; 95% CI -3.93 to 2.43). Four studies reported the length of hospital stay and there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups (MD -0.12; 95% CI -6.15 to 5.90). None of the studies described any complications related to NIPPV. Of the seven included studies, four studies were considered as 'low risk of bias' in all domains, two studies were considered 'high risk of bias' for the allocation concealment domain, and one of these was also considered 'high risk of bias' for random sequence generation. One other study was considered 'high risk of bias' for including participants with more severe disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated that there was no additional benefit of using NIPPV in postoperative pulmonary resection for all outcomes analysed (pulmonary complications, rate of intubation, mortality, rate of non-pulmonary complications, postoperative consumption of antibiotics, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay and adverse effects related to NIPPV). However, the quality of evidence is 'very low', 'low' and 'moderate' since there were few studies, with small sample size and low frequency of outcomes. New well-designed and well-conducted randomised trials are needed to answer the questions of this review with greater certainty.

Step-by-step clinical management of one-lung ventilation: continuing professional development

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Continuing Professional Development Module is to review the issues pertinent to one-lung ventilation (OLV) and to propose a management strategy for ventilation before, during, and after lung isolation.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The need for optimal lung isolation has increased with the advent of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, as surgical exposure is critical for successful surgery. Continuous positive airway pressure applied to the operative lung or intermittent two-lung ventilation should therefore be avoided if possible. Optimal management of OLV should provide adequate oxygenation and also prevent acute lung injury (ALI), the leading cause of death following lung resection. Research conducted in the last decade suggests implementing a protective ventilation strategy during OLV that consists of small tidal volumes based on ideal body weight, routine use of positive end-expiratory pressure, low inspired oxygen fraction, with low peak and plateau airway pressures. High respiratory rates to compensate for low tidal volumes may predispose to significant air trapping during OLV, so permissive hypercapnea is routinely employed. The management of OLV extends into the period of two-lung ventilation, as the period prior to OLV impacts lung collapse, and both the time before and after OLV influence the extent of ALI. Lung re-expansion at the conclusion of OLV is an important component of ensuring adequate ventilation and oxygenation postoperatively but may be harmful to the lung.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal perioperative care of the thoracic patient includes a protective ventilation strategy from intubation to extubation and into the immediate postoperative period. Anesthetic goals include the prevention of perioperative hypoxemia and postoperative ALI.