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.

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.

Use of lung expansion techniques on drained and non-drained pleural effusion: survey with 232 physiotherapists

Abstract Introduction: Techniques for lung expansion seem to benefit patients with drained and undrained pleural effusion, but there is a lack of evidence to indicate which technique is best in each situation. Currently, the therapeutic choices of respiratory physiotherapists serving this population are not known. Objective: To know which lung expansion techniques are chosen by chest physiotherapists who assist patients with drained and non-drained pleural effusion. Method: Through the announcement of the Federal Council, 232 physiotherapists who work in hospitals in Brazil were questioned about which techniques they apply to patients with drained and non-drained effusion. Results: Initially, 512 were questioned but 232 (45.3%) answered. The physiotherapists associate more than one technique of lung expansion in both types of patients, besides walking. Deep breathing is the most used technique in patients with drained (92%) and non-drained (77%) pleural effusion. Positive pressure exercises in the airways are chosen by 60% of the physiotherapists to treat patients with drained pleural effusion and by 34% to treat patients with non-drained pleural effusion. Yet the incentive spirometry are used with 66% of patients with drained pleural effusion and 42% with non-drained ones. Conclusion: Deep breathing is the most applied lung expansion technique in the treatment of patients with drained and non-drained pleural effusion by chest physiotherapists. In addition, there is association between greatest degree and time of professional performance and the chosen techniques.

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.

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.

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.