Cargando…

Effect of intravenous vs. inhaled penehyclidine on respiratory mechanics in patients during one-lung ventilation for thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Minimising postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) after thoracic surgery is of utmost importance. A major factor contributing to PPCs is the driving pressure, which is determined by the ratio of tidal volume to lung compliance. Inhalation and intravenous administration of penehycli...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: An, Ming-zi, Xu, Cheng-yun, Hou, Yue-ru, Li, Zhen-ping, Gao, Te-sheng, Zhou, Qing-he
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10508004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37726724
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02653-8
_version_ 1785107437189070848
author An, Ming-zi
Xu, Cheng-yun
Hou, Yue-ru
Li, Zhen-ping
Gao, Te-sheng
Zhou, Qing-he
author_facet An, Ming-zi
Xu, Cheng-yun
Hou, Yue-ru
Li, Zhen-ping
Gao, Te-sheng
Zhou, Qing-he
author_sort An, Ming-zi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Minimising postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) after thoracic surgery is of utmost importance. A major factor contributing to PPCs is the driving pressure, which is determined by the ratio of tidal volume to lung compliance. Inhalation and intravenous administration of penehyclidine can improve lung compliance during intraoperative mechanical ventilation. Therefore, our study aimed to compare the efficacy of inhaled vs. intravenous penehyclidine during one-lung ventilation (OLV) in mitigating driving pressure and mechanical power among patients undergoing thoracic surgery. METHODS: A double-blind, prospective, randomised study involving 176 patients scheduled for elective thoracic surgery was conducted. These patients were randomly divided into two groups, namely the penehyclidine inhalation group and the intravenous group before their surgery. Driving pressure was assessed at T(1) (5 min after OLV), T(2) (15 min after OLV), T(3) (30 min after OLV), and T(4) (45 min after OLV) in both groups. The primary outcome of this study was the composite measure of driving pressure during OLV. The area under the curve (AUC) of driving pressure from T(1) to T(4) was computed. Additionally, the secondary outcomes included mechanical power, lung compliance and the incidence of PPCs. RESULTS: All 167 participants, 83 from the intravenous group and 84 from the inhalation group, completed the trial. The AUC of driving pressure for the intravenous group was 39.50 ± 9.42, while the inhalation group showed a value of 41.50 ± 8.03 (P = 0.138). The incidence of PPCs within 7 days after surgery was 27.7% in the intravenous group and 23.8% in the inhalation group (P = 0.564). No significant differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes between the two groups (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that among patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery, no significant differences were observed in the driving pressure and mechanical power during OLV between those who received an intravenous injection of penehyclidine and those who inhaled it. Moreover, no significant difference was observed in the incidence of PPCs between the two groups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10508004
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105080042023-09-20 Effect of intravenous vs. inhaled penehyclidine on respiratory mechanics in patients during one-lung ventilation for thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial An, Ming-zi Xu, Cheng-yun Hou, Yue-ru Li, Zhen-ping Gao, Te-sheng Zhou, Qing-he BMC Pulm Med Research BACKGROUND: Minimising postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) after thoracic surgery is of utmost importance. A major factor contributing to PPCs is the driving pressure, which is determined by the ratio of tidal volume to lung compliance. Inhalation and intravenous administration of penehyclidine can improve lung compliance during intraoperative mechanical ventilation. Therefore, our study aimed to compare the efficacy of inhaled vs. intravenous penehyclidine during one-lung ventilation (OLV) in mitigating driving pressure and mechanical power among patients undergoing thoracic surgery. METHODS: A double-blind, prospective, randomised study involving 176 patients scheduled for elective thoracic surgery was conducted. These patients were randomly divided into two groups, namely the penehyclidine inhalation group and the intravenous group before their surgery. Driving pressure was assessed at T(1) (5 min after OLV), T(2) (15 min after OLV), T(3) (30 min after OLV), and T(4) (45 min after OLV) in both groups. The primary outcome of this study was the composite measure of driving pressure during OLV. The area under the curve (AUC) of driving pressure from T(1) to T(4) was computed. Additionally, the secondary outcomes included mechanical power, lung compliance and the incidence of PPCs. RESULTS: All 167 participants, 83 from the intravenous group and 84 from the inhalation group, completed the trial. The AUC of driving pressure for the intravenous group was 39.50 ± 9.42, while the inhalation group showed a value of 41.50 ± 8.03 (P = 0.138). The incidence of PPCs within 7 days after surgery was 27.7% in the intravenous group and 23.8% in the inhalation group (P = 0.564). No significant differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes between the two groups (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that among patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery, no significant differences were observed in the driving pressure and mechanical power during OLV between those who received an intravenous injection of penehyclidine and those who inhaled it. Moreover, no significant difference was observed in the incidence of PPCs between the two groups. BioMed Central 2023-09-19 /pmc/articles/PMC10508004/ /pubmed/37726724 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02653-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
An, Ming-zi
Xu, Cheng-yun
Hou, Yue-ru
Li, Zhen-ping
Gao, Te-sheng
Zhou, Qing-he
Effect of intravenous vs. inhaled penehyclidine on respiratory mechanics in patients during one-lung ventilation for thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial
title Effect of intravenous vs. inhaled penehyclidine on respiratory mechanics in patients during one-lung ventilation for thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial
title_full Effect of intravenous vs. inhaled penehyclidine on respiratory mechanics in patients during one-lung ventilation for thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Effect of intravenous vs. inhaled penehyclidine on respiratory mechanics in patients during one-lung ventilation for thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Effect of intravenous vs. inhaled penehyclidine on respiratory mechanics in patients during one-lung ventilation for thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial
title_short Effect of intravenous vs. inhaled penehyclidine on respiratory mechanics in patients during one-lung ventilation for thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial
title_sort effect of intravenous vs. inhaled penehyclidine on respiratory mechanics in patients during one-lung ventilation for thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10508004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37726724
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02653-8
work_keys_str_mv AT anmingzi effectofintravenousvsinhaledpenehyclidineonrespiratorymechanicsinpatientsduringonelungventilationforthoracoscopicsurgeryaprospectivedoubleblindrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT xuchengyun effectofintravenousvsinhaledpenehyclidineonrespiratorymechanicsinpatientsduringonelungventilationforthoracoscopicsurgeryaprospectivedoubleblindrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT houyueru effectofintravenousvsinhaledpenehyclidineonrespiratorymechanicsinpatientsduringonelungventilationforthoracoscopicsurgeryaprospectivedoubleblindrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT lizhenping effectofintravenousvsinhaledpenehyclidineonrespiratorymechanicsinpatientsduringonelungventilationforthoracoscopicsurgeryaprospectivedoubleblindrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT gaotesheng effectofintravenousvsinhaledpenehyclidineonrespiratorymechanicsinpatientsduringonelungventilationforthoracoscopicsurgeryaprospectivedoubleblindrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT zhouqinghe effectofintravenousvsinhaledpenehyclidineonrespiratorymechanicsinpatientsduringonelungventilationforthoracoscopicsurgeryaprospectivedoubleblindrandomisedcontrolledtrial