Cargando…
Open lung approach versus standard protective strategies: Effects on driving pressure and ventilatory efficiency during anesthesia - A pilot, randomized controlled trial
BACKGROUND: Low tidal volume (VT) during anesthesia minimizes lung injury but may be associated to a decrease in functional lung volume impairing lung mechanics and efficiency. Lung recruitment (RM) can restore lung volume but this may critically depend on the post-RM selected PEEP. This study was a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426745/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28493943 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177399 |
_version_ | 1783235543451041792 |
---|---|
author | Ferrando, Carlos Suarez-Sipmann, Fernando Tusman, Gerardo León, Irene Romero, Esther Gracia, Estefania Mugarra, Ana Arocas, Blanca Pozo, Natividad Soro, Marina Belda, Francisco J. |
author_facet | Ferrando, Carlos Suarez-Sipmann, Fernando Tusman, Gerardo León, Irene Romero, Esther Gracia, Estefania Mugarra, Ana Arocas, Blanca Pozo, Natividad Soro, Marina Belda, Francisco J. |
author_sort | Ferrando, Carlos |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Low tidal volume (VT) during anesthesia minimizes lung injury but may be associated to a decrease in functional lung volume impairing lung mechanics and efficiency. Lung recruitment (RM) can restore lung volume but this may critically depend on the post-RM selected PEEP. This study was a randomized, two parallel arm, open study whose primary outcome was to compare the effects on driving pressure of adding a RM to low-VT ventilation, with or without an individualized post-RM PEEP in patients without known previous lung disease during anesthesia. METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery were submitted to low-VT ventilation (6 ml·kg(-1)) and standard PEEP of 5 cmH(2)O (pre-RM, n = 36). After 30 min estabilization all patients received a RM and were randomly allocated to either continue with the same PEEP (RM-5 group, n = 18) or to an individualized open-lung PEEP (OL-PEEP) (Open Lung Approach, OLA group, n = 18) defined as the level resulting in maximal Cdyn during a decremental PEEP trial. We compared the effects on driving pressure and lung efficiency measured by volumetric capnography. RESULTS: OL-PEEP was found at 8±2 cmH(2)O. 36 patients were included in the final analysis. When compared with pre-RM, OLA resulted in a 22% increase in compliance and a 28% decrease in driving pressure when compared to pre-RM. These parameters did not improve in the RM-5. The trend of the DP was significantly different between the OLA and RM-5 groups (p = 0.002). VDalv/VTalv was significantly lower in the OLA group after the RM (p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Lung recruitment applied during low-VT ventilation improves driving pressure and lung efficiency only when applied as an open-lung strategy with an individualized PEEP in patients without lung diseases undergoing major abdominal surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02798133 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5426745 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54267452017-05-25 Open lung approach versus standard protective strategies: Effects on driving pressure and ventilatory efficiency during anesthesia - A pilot, randomized controlled trial Ferrando, Carlos Suarez-Sipmann, Fernando Tusman, Gerardo León, Irene Romero, Esther Gracia, Estefania Mugarra, Ana Arocas, Blanca Pozo, Natividad Soro, Marina Belda, Francisco J. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Low tidal volume (VT) during anesthesia minimizes lung injury but may be associated to a decrease in functional lung volume impairing lung mechanics and efficiency. Lung recruitment (RM) can restore lung volume but this may critically depend on the post-RM selected PEEP. This study was a randomized, two parallel arm, open study whose primary outcome was to compare the effects on driving pressure of adding a RM to low-VT ventilation, with or without an individualized post-RM PEEP in patients without known previous lung disease during anesthesia. METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery were submitted to low-VT ventilation (6 ml·kg(-1)) and standard PEEP of 5 cmH(2)O (pre-RM, n = 36). After 30 min estabilization all patients received a RM and were randomly allocated to either continue with the same PEEP (RM-5 group, n = 18) or to an individualized open-lung PEEP (OL-PEEP) (Open Lung Approach, OLA group, n = 18) defined as the level resulting in maximal Cdyn during a decremental PEEP trial. We compared the effects on driving pressure and lung efficiency measured by volumetric capnography. RESULTS: OL-PEEP was found at 8±2 cmH(2)O. 36 patients were included in the final analysis. When compared with pre-RM, OLA resulted in a 22% increase in compliance and a 28% decrease in driving pressure when compared to pre-RM. These parameters did not improve in the RM-5. The trend of the DP was significantly different between the OLA and RM-5 groups (p = 0.002). VDalv/VTalv was significantly lower in the OLA group after the RM (p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Lung recruitment applied during low-VT ventilation improves driving pressure and lung efficiency only when applied as an open-lung strategy with an individualized PEEP in patients without lung diseases undergoing major abdominal surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02798133 Public Library of Science 2017-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5426745/ /pubmed/28493943 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177399 Text en © 2017 Ferrando et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Ferrando, Carlos Suarez-Sipmann, Fernando Tusman, Gerardo León, Irene Romero, Esther Gracia, Estefania Mugarra, Ana Arocas, Blanca Pozo, Natividad Soro, Marina Belda, Francisco J. Open lung approach versus standard protective strategies: Effects on driving pressure and ventilatory efficiency during anesthesia - A pilot, randomized controlled trial |
title | Open lung approach versus standard protective strategies: Effects on driving pressure and ventilatory efficiency during anesthesia - A pilot, randomized controlled trial |
title_full | Open lung approach versus standard protective strategies: Effects on driving pressure and ventilatory efficiency during anesthesia - A pilot, randomized controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Open lung approach versus standard protective strategies: Effects on driving pressure and ventilatory efficiency during anesthesia - A pilot, randomized controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Open lung approach versus standard protective strategies: Effects on driving pressure and ventilatory efficiency during anesthesia - A pilot, randomized controlled trial |
title_short | Open lung approach versus standard protective strategies: Effects on driving pressure and ventilatory efficiency during anesthesia - A pilot, randomized controlled trial |
title_sort | open lung approach versus standard protective strategies: effects on driving pressure and ventilatory efficiency during anesthesia - a pilot, randomized controlled trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5426745/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28493943 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177399 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ferrandocarlos openlungapproachversusstandardprotectivestrategieseffectsondrivingpressureandventilatoryefficiencyduringanesthesiaapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT suarezsipmannfernando openlungapproachversusstandardprotectivestrategieseffectsondrivingpressureandventilatoryefficiencyduringanesthesiaapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT tusmangerardo openlungapproachversusstandardprotectivestrategieseffectsondrivingpressureandventilatoryefficiencyduringanesthesiaapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT leonirene openlungapproachversusstandardprotectivestrategieseffectsondrivingpressureandventilatoryefficiencyduringanesthesiaapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT romeroesther openlungapproachversusstandardprotectivestrategieseffectsondrivingpressureandventilatoryefficiencyduringanesthesiaapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT graciaestefania openlungapproachversusstandardprotectivestrategieseffectsondrivingpressureandventilatoryefficiencyduringanesthesiaapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT mugarraana openlungapproachversusstandardprotectivestrategieseffectsondrivingpressureandventilatoryefficiencyduringanesthesiaapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT arocasblanca openlungapproachversusstandardprotectivestrategieseffectsondrivingpressureandventilatoryefficiencyduringanesthesiaapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT pozonatividad openlungapproachversusstandardprotectivestrategieseffectsondrivingpressureandventilatoryefficiencyduringanesthesiaapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT soromarina openlungapproachversusstandardprotectivestrategieseffectsondrivingpressureandventilatoryefficiencyduringanesthesiaapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial AT beldafranciscoj openlungapproachversusstandardprotectivestrategieseffectsondrivingpressureandventilatoryefficiencyduringanesthesiaapilotrandomizedcontrolledtrial |