Driving Pressure During General Anesthesia for Open Abdominal Surgery (DESIGNATION): study protocol of a randomized clinical trial

Respiratory mechanics and mechanical power during low vs. high positive end-expiratory pressure in obese surgical patients - A sub-study of the PROBESE randomized controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We aimed to characterize intra-operative mechanical ventilation with low or high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment manoeuvres (RM) regarding intra-tidal recruitment/derecruitment and overdistension using non-linear respiratory mechanics, and mechanical power in obese surgical patients enrolled in the PROBESE trial.

DESIGN

Prospective, two-centre substudy of the international, multicentre, two-arm, randomized-controlled PROBESE trial.

SETTING

Operating rooms of two European University Hospitals.

PATIENTS

Forty-eight adult obese patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Intra-operative protective ventilation with either PEEP of 12 cmH2O and repeated RM (HighPEEP+RM) or 4 cmH2O without RM (LowPEEP).

MEASUREMENTS

The index of intra-tidal recruitment/de-recruitment and overdistension (%E2) as well as airway pressure, tidal volume (VT), respiratory rate (RR), resistance, elastance, and mechanical power (MP) were calculated from respiratory signals recorded after anesthesia induction, 1 h thereafter, and end of surgery (EOS).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were analyzed in each group. PEEP was higher (mean ± SD, 11.7 ± 0.4 vs. 3.7 ± 0.6 cmH2O, P < 0.001) and driving pressure lower (12.8 ± 3.5 vs. 21.7 ± 6.8 cmH2O, P < 0.001) during HighPEEP+RM than LowPEEP, while VT and RR did not differ significantly (7.3 ± 0.6 vs. 7.4 ± 0.8 ml∙kg-1, P = 0.835; and 14.6 ± 2.5 vs. 15.7 ± 2.0 min-1, P = 0.150, respectively). %E2 was higher in HighPEEP+RM than in LowPEEP following induction (-3.1 ± 7.2 vs. -12.4 ± 10.2%; P < 0.001) and subsequent timepoints. Total resistance and elastance (13.3 ± 3.8 vs. 17.7 ± 6.8 cmH2O∙l∙s-2, P = 0.009; and 15.7 ± 5.5 vs. 28.5 ± 8.4 cmH2O∙l, P < 0.001, respectively) were lower during HighPEEP+RM than LowPEEP. Additionally, MP was lower in HighPEEP+RM than LowPEEP group (5.0 ± 2.2 vs. 10.4 ± 4.7 J∙min-1, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this sub-cohort of PROBESE, intra-operative ventilation with high PEEP and RM reduced intra-tidal recruitment/de-recruitment as well as driving pressure, elastance, resistance, and mechanical power, as compared with low PEEP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The PROBESE study was registered at www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, identifier: NCT02148692 (submission for registration on May 23, 2014).

Safety and Feasibility of Intraoperative High PEEP Titrated to the Lowest Driving Pressure (ΔP)-Interim Analysis of DESIGNATION

Uncertainty remains about the best level of intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). An ongoing RCT ('DESIGNATION') compares an 'individualized high PEEP' strategy ('iPEEP')-titrated to the lowest driving pressure (ΔP) with recruitment maneuvers (RM), with a 'standard low PEEP' strategy ('low PEEP')-using 5 cm H2O without RMs with respect to the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications. This report is an interim analysis of safety and feasibility. From September 2018 to July 2022, we enrolled 743 patients. Data of 698 patients were available for this analysis. Hypotension occurred more often in 'iPEEP' vs. 'low PEEP' (54.7 vs. 44.1%; RR, 1.24 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.44); p < 0.01). Investigators were compliant with the study protocol 285/344 patients (82.8%) in 'iPEEP', and 345/354 patients (97.5%) in 'low PEEP' (p < 0.01). Most frequent protocol violation was missing the final RM at the end of anesthesia before extubation; PEEP titration was performed in 99.4 vs. 0%; PEEP was set correctly in 89.8 vs. 98.9%. Compared to 'low PEEP', the 'iPEEP' group was ventilated with higher PEEP (10.0 (8.0-12.0) vs. 5.0 (5.0-5.0) cm H2O; p < 0.01). Thus, in patients undergoing general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery, an individualized high PEEP ventilation strategy is associated with hypotension. The protocol is feasible and results in clear contrast in PEEP. DESIGNATION is expected to finish in late 2023.

The effect of driving pressure-guided versus conventional mechanical ventilation strategy on pulmonary complications following on-pump cardiac surgery: A randomized clinical trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Postoperative pulmonary complications occur frequently and are associated with worse postoperative outcomes in cardiac surgical patients. The advantage of driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy in decreasing pulmonary complications remains to be definitively established. We aimed to investigate the effect of intraoperative driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy compared with conventional lung-protective ventilation on pulmonary complications following on-pump cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective, two-arm, randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

The West China university hospital in Sichuan, China.

PATIENTS

Adult patients who were scheduled for elective on-pump cardiac surgery were enrolled in the study.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery were randomized to receive driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy based on positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration or conventional lung-protective ventilation strategy with fixed 5 cmH2O of PEEP.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome of pulmonary complications (including acute respiratory distress syndrome, atelectasis, pneumonia, pleural effusion, and pneumothorax) within the first 7 postoperative days were prospectively identified. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary complication severity, ICU length of stay, and in-hospital and 30-day mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

Between August 2020 and July 2021, we enrolled 694 eligible patients who were included in the final analysis. Postoperative pulmonary complications occurred in 140 (40.3%) patients in the driving pressure group and 142 (40.9%) in the conventional group (relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.18; P = 0.877). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference between study groups regarding the incidence of primary outcome. The driving pressure group had less atelectasis than the conventional group (11.5% vs 17.0%; relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.98; P = 0.039). Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

Among patients who underwent on-pump cardiac surgery, the use of driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy did not reduce the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications when compared with conventional lung-protective ventilation strategy.

Individualised positive end-expiratory pressure in abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Individualised PEEP may optimise pulmonary compliance, thereby potentially mitigating lung injury. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the impact of individualised PEEP vs fixed PEEP during abdominal surgery on postoperative pulmonary outcomes.

METHODS

Medical databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched for RCTs comparing fixed vs individualised PEEP. The composite primary outcome of pulmonary complications comprised hypoxaemia, atelectasis, pneumonia, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Secondary outcomes included oxygenation (P_aO₂/FiO₂) and systemic inflammatory markers (interleukin-6 [IL-6] and club cell protein-16 [CC16]). We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was applied.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs (n=1117 patients) met the criteria for inclusion, with six reporting the primary endpoint. Individualised PEEP reduced the incidence of overall pulmonary complications (141/412 [34.2%]) compared with 183/415 (44.1%) receiving fixed PEEP (RR 0.69 [95% CI: 0.51-0.93]; P=0.016; I²=43%). Risk-of-bias analysis did not alter these findings. Individualised PEEP reduced postoperative hypoxaemia (74/392 [18.9%]) compared with 110/395 (27.8%) participants receiving fixed PEEP (RR 0.68 [0.52-0.88]; P=0.003; I²=0%) but not postoperative atelectasis (RR 0.93 [0.81-1.07]; P=0.297; I²=0%). Individualised PEEP resulted in higher P_aO₂/FiO₂ (MD 20.8 mm Hg [4.6-36.9]; P=0.012; I²=80%) and reduced systemic inflammation (lower plasma IL-6 [MD -6.8 pg ml^-1; -11.9 to -1.7]; P=0.009; I²=6%; and CC16 levels [MD -6.2 ng ml^-1; -8.8 to -3.5]; P<0.001; I²=0%) at the end of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Individualised PEEP may reduce pulmonary complications, improve oxygenation, and reduce systemic inflammation after abdominal surgery.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42021277973.

Intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure and postoperative pulmonary complications: a patient-level meta-analysis of three randomised clinical trials

BACKGROUND

High intraoperative PEEP with recruitment manoeuvres may improve perioperative outcomes. We re-examined this question by conducting a patient-level meta-analysis of three clinical trials in adult patients at increased risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who underwent non-cardiothoracic and non-neurological surgery.

METHODS

The three trials enrolled patients at 128 hospitals in 24 countries from February 2011 to February 2018. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with low tidal volume. Analyses were performed using one-stage, two-level, mixed modelling (site as a random effect; trial as a fixed effect). The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications within the first week, analysed using mixed-effect logistic regression. Pre-specified subgroup analyses of nine patient characteristics and seven procedure and care-delivery characteristics were also performed.

RESULTS

Complete datasets were available for 1913 participants ventilated with high PEEP and recruitment manoeuvres, compared with 1924 participants who received low PEEP. The primary outcome occurred in 562/1913 (29.4%) participants randomised to high PEEP, compared with 620/1924 (32.2%) participants randomised to low PEEP (unadjusted odds ratio [OR]=0.87; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.75-1.01; P=0.06). Higher PEEP resulted in 87/1913 (4.5%) participants requiring interventions for desaturation, compared with 216/1924 (11.2%) participants randomised to low PEEP (OR=0.34; 95% CI, 0.26-0.45). Intraoperative hypotension was associated more frequently (784/1913 [41.0%]) with high PEEP, compared with low PEEP (579/1924 [30.1%]; OR=1.87; 95% CI, 1.60-2.17).

CONCLUSIONS

High PEEP combined with recruitment manoeuvres during low tidal volume ventilation in patients undergoing major surgery did not reduce postoperative pulmonary complications.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03937375 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

Management of Intraoperative Mechanical Ventilation to Prevent Postoperative Complications after General Anesthesia: A Narrative Review

Mechanical ventilation (MV) is still necessary in many surgical procedures; nonetheless, intraoperative MV is not free from harmful effects. Protective ventilation strategies, which include the combination of low tidal volume and adequate positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels, are usually adopted to minimize the ventilation-induced lung injury and to avoid post-operative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Even so, volutrauma and atelectrauma may co-exist at different levels of tidal volume and PEEP, and therefore, the physiological response to the MV settings should be monitored in each patient. A personalized perioperative approach is gaining relevance in the field of intraoperative MV; in particular, many efforts have been made to individualize PEEP, giving more emphasis on physiological and functional status to the whole body. In this review, we summarized the latest findings about the optimization of PEEP and intraoperative MV in different surgical settings. Starting from a physiological point of view, we described how to approach the individualized MV and monitor the effects of MV on lung function.

[Intraoperative Ventilation in Adults]

Avoiding postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) is an important goal for anesthesiologists during general anesthesia, and ventilation strategies may play a role. It seems reasonable to apply knowledge from lessons we learned from ventilation of intensive care unit patients aiming at avoiding ventilator associated lung injury. Ventilation associated lung injuries occur frequently and are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Strategies of lung protective ventilation, like lower tidal volumes and the use of positive end-expiatory pressure (PEEP), can usually be transferred safely to perioperative ventilation, although some issues such as hemodynamic side effects must be considered. For some reasons, however, current evidence is conflicting and there is no consensus on ventilatory perioperative management to avoid PPCs so far. This paper briefly summarizes physiological backgrounds in a functional context, current evidence, and provides some recommendations at "expert" opinion level for perioperative ventilation procedures.Especially in patients at risk and/or during surgery with higher surgical trauma and inflammation, we recommend limiting tidal volume to 6 - 8 ml/kg predicted body weight and the use of PEEP, which should be individualized e.g. by minimizing driving pressure. Recruitment maneuvers may be considered and should be carried out by using the ventilator.Obese patients are an increasing entity and can be challenging during anesthesia and ventilation. From a physiological point of view, these patients require much higher ventilation pressures as currently used, although recent evidence is not in favor of using moderately higher PEEP, which is matter of discussion.

The Effect of Ventilation with Individualized Positive End-Expiratory Pressure on Postoperative Atelectasis in Patients Undergoing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

For patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, the pneumoperitoneum with a steep Trendelenburg position could worsen intraoperative respiratory mechanics and result in postoperative atelectasis. We investigated the effects of individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on postoperative atelectasis, evaluated using lung ultrasonography. Sixty patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were randomly allocated into two groups. Individualized groups (n = 30) received individualized PEEP determined by a decremental PEEP trial using 20 to 7 cm H₂O, aiming at maximizing respiratory compliance, whereas standardized groups (n = 30) received a standardized PEEP of 7 cm H₂O during the pneumoperitoneum. Ultrasound examination was performed on 12 sections of thorax, and the lung ultrasound score was measured as 0–3 by considering the number of B lines and the degree of subpleural consolidation. The primary outcome was the difference between the lung ultrasound scores measured before anesthesia induction and just after extubation in the operating room. An increase in the difference means the development of atelectasis. The optimal PEEP in the individualized group was determined as the median (interquartile range) 14 (12–18) cm H₂O. Compared with the standardized group, the difference in the lung ultrasound scores was significantly smaller in the individualized group (−0.5 ± 2.7 vs. 6.0 ± 2.9, mean difference −6.53, 95% confidence interval (−8.00 to −5.07), p < 0.001), which means that individualized PEEP was effective to reduce atelectasis. The lung ultrasound score measured after surgery was significantly lower in the individualized group than the standardized group (8.1 ± 5.7 vs. 12.2 ± 4.2, mean difference −4.13, 95% confidence interval (−6.74 to −1.53), p = 0.002). However, the arterial partial pressure of the oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen levels during the surgery showed no significant time-group interaction between the two groups in repeated-measures analysis of variance (p = 0.145). The incidence of a composite of postoperative respiratory complications was comparable between the two groups. Individualized PEEP determined by maximal respiratory compliance during the pneumoperitoneum and steep Trendelenburg position significantly reduced postoperative atelectasis, as evaluated using lung ultrasonography. However, the clinical significance of this finding should be evaluated by a larger clinical trial.

Perioperative Lung Protection: Clinical Implications

In the past, it was common practice to use a high tidal volume (VT) during intraoperative ventilation, because this reduced the need for high oxygen fractions to compensate for the ventilation-perfusion mismatches due to atelectasis in a time when it was uncommon to use positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in the operating room. Convincing and increasing evidence for harm induced by ventilation with a high VT has emerged over recent decades, also in the operating room, and by now intraoperative ventilation with a low VT is a well-adopted approach. There is less certainty about the level of PEEP during intraoperative ventilation. Evidence for benefit and harm of higher PEEP during intraoperative ventilation is at least contradicting. While some PEEP may prevent lung injury through reduction of atelectasis, higher PEEP is undeniably associated with an increased risk of intraoperative hypotension that frequently requires administration of vasoactive drugs. The optimal level of inspired oxygen fraction (FIO2) during surgery is even more uncertain. The suggestion that hyperoxemia prevents against surgical site infections has not been confirmed in recent research. In addition, gas absorption-induced atelectasis and its association with adverse outcomes like postoperative pulmonary complications actually makes use of a high FIO2 less attractive. Based on the available evidence, we recommend the use of a low VT of 6-8 mL/kg predicted body weight in all surgery patients, and to restrict use of a high PEEP and high FIO2 during intraoperative ventilation to cases in which hypoxemia develops. Here, we prefer to first increase FIO2 before using high PEEP.