Cargando…

Physiological effects of two driving pressure-based methods to set positive end-expiratory pressure during one lung ventilation

During one-lung ventilation (OLV), titrating the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to target a low driving pressure (∆P) could reduce postoperative pulmonary complications. However, it is unclear how to conduct PEEP titration: by stepwise increase starting from zero PEEP (PEEP(INCREMENTAL)) or...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Spadaro, Savino, Grasso, Salvatore, Karbing, Dan Stieper, Santoro, Giuseppe, Cavallesco, Giorgio, Maniscalco, Pio, Murgolo, Francesca, Di Mussi, Rosa, Ragazzi, Riccardo, Rees, Stephen Edward, Volta, Carlo Alberto, Fogagnolo, Alberto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7439797/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32816177
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-020-00582-z
_version_ 1783573050670710784
author Spadaro, Savino
Grasso, Salvatore
Karbing, Dan Stieper
Santoro, Giuseppe
Cavallesco, Giorgio
Maniscalco, Pio
Murgolo, Francesca
Di Mussi, Rosa
Ragazzi, Riccardo
Rees, Stephen Edward
Volta, Carlo Alberto
Fogagnolo, Alberto
author_facet Spadaro, Savino
Grasso, Salvatore
Karbing, Dan Stieper
Santoro, Giuseppe
Cavallesco, Giorgio
Maniscalco, Pio
Murgolo, Francesca
Di Mussi, Rosa
Ragazzi, Riccardo
Rees, Stephen Edward
Volta, Carlo Alberto
Fogagnolo, Alberto
author_sort Spadaro, Savino
collection PubMed
description During one-lung ventilation (OLV), titrating the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to target a low driving pressure (∆P) could reduce postoperative pulmonary complications. However, it is unclear how to conduct PEEP titration: by stepwise increase starting from zero PEEP (PEEP(INCREMENTAL)) or by stepwise decrease after a lung recruiting manoeuvre (PEEP(DECREMENTAL)). In this randomized trial, we compared the physiological effects of these two PEEP titration strategies on respiratory mechanics, ventilation/perfusion mismatch and gas exchange. Patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in OLV were randomly assigned to a PEEP(INCREMENTAL) or PEEP(DECREMENTAL) strategy to match the lowest ∆P. In the PEEP(INCREMENTAL) group, PEEP was stepwise titrated from ZEEP up to 16 cm H(2)O, whereas in the PEEP(DECREMENTAL) group PEEP was decrementally titrated, starting from 16 cm H(2)O, immediately after a lung recruiting manoeuvre. Respiratory mechanics, ventilation/perfusion mismatch and blood gas analyses were recorded at baseline, after PEEP titration and at the end of surgery. Sixty patients were included in the study. After PEEP titration, shunt decreased similarly in both groups, from 50 [39–55]% to 35 [28–42]% in the PEEP(INCREMENTAL) and from 45 [37–58]% to 33 [25–45]% in the PEEP(DECREMENTAL) group (both p < 0.001 vs baseline). The resulting ∆P, however, was lower in the PEEP(DECREMENTAL) than in the PEEP(INCREMENTAL) group (8 [7–11] vs 10 [9–11] cm H(2)O; p = 0.03). In the PEEP(DECREMENTAL) group the PaO(2)/ FIO(2) ratio increased significantly after intervention (from 140 [99–176] to 186 [152–243], p < 0.001). Both the PEEP(INCREMENTAL) and the PEEP(DECREMENTAL) strategies were able to decrease intraoperative shunt, but only PEEP(DECREMENTAL) improved oxygenation and lowered intraoperative ΔP. Clinical trial number NCT03635281; August 2018; “retrospectively registered” ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10877-020-00582-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7439797
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74397972020-08-21 Physiological effects of two driving pressure-based methods to set positive end-expiratory pressure during one lung ventilation Spadaro, Savino Grasso, Salvatore Karbing, Dan Stieper Santoro, Giuseppe Cavallesco, Giorgio Maniscalco, Pio Murgolo, Francesca Di Mussi, Rosa Ragazzi, Riccardo Rees, Stephen Edward Volta, Carlo Alberto Fogagnolo, Alberto J Clin Monit Comput Original Research During one-lung ventilation (OLV), titrating the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to target a low driving pressure (∆P) could reduce postoperative pulmonary complications. However, it is unclear how to conduct PEEP titration: by stepwise increase starting from zero PEEP (PEEP(INCREMENTAL)) or by stepwise decrease after a lung recruiting manoeuvre (PEEP(DECREMENTAL)). In this randomized trial, we compared the physiological effects of these two PEEP titration strategies on respiratory mechanics, ventilation/perfusion mismatch and gas exchange. Patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in OLV were randomly assigned to a PEEP(INCREMENTAL) or PEEP(DECREMENTAL) strategy to match the lowest ∆P. In the PEEP(INCREMENTAL) group, PEEP was stepwise titrated from ZEEP up to 16 cm H(2)O, whereas in the PEEP(DECREMENTAL) group PEEP was decrementally titrated, starting from 16 cm H(2)O, immediately after a lung recruiting manoeuvre. Respiratory mechanics, ventilation/perfusion mismatch and blood gas analyses were recorded at baseline, after PEEP titration and at the end of surgery. Sixty patients were included in the study. After PEEP titration, shunt decreased similarly in both groups, from 50 [39–55]% to 35 [28–42]% in the PEEP(INCREMENTAL) and from 45 [37–58]% to 33 [25–45]% in the PEEP(DECREMENTAL) group (both p < 0.001 vs baseline). The resulting ∆P, however, was lower in the PEEP(DECREMENTAL) than in the PEEP(INCREMENTAL) group (8 [7–11] vs 10 [9–11] cm H(2)O; p = 0.03). In the PEEP(DECREMENTAL) group the PaO(2)/ FIO(2) ratio increased significantly after intervention (from 140 [99–176] to 186 [152–243], p < 0.001). Both the PEEP(INCREMENTAL) and the PEEP(DECREMENTAL) strategies were able to decrease intraoperative shunt, but only PEEP(DECREMENTAL) improved oxygenation and lowered intraoperative ΔP. Clinical trial number NCT03635281; August 2018; “retrospectively registered” ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10877-020-00582-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Netherlands 2020-08-20 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7439797/ /pubmed/32816177 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-020-00582-z Text en © Springer Nature B.V. 2020 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Original Research
Spadaro, Savino
Grasso, Salvatore
Karbing, Dan Stieper
Santoro, Giuseppe
Cavallesco, Giorgio
Maniscalco, Pio
Murgolo, Francesca
Di Mussi, Rosa
Ragazzi, Riccardo
Rees, Stephen Edward
Volta, Carlo Alberto
Fogagnolo, Alberto
Physiological effects of two driving pressure-based methods to set positive end-expiratory pressure during one lung ventilation
title Physiological effects of two driving pressure-based methods to set positive end-expiratory pressure during one lung ventilation
title_full Physiological effects of two driving pressure-based methods to set positive end-expiratory pressure during one lung ventilation
title_fullStr Physiological effects of two driving pressure-based methods to set positive end-expiratory pressure during one lung ventilation
title_full_unstemmed Physiological effects of two driving pressure-based methods to set positive end-expiratory pressure during one lung ventilation
title_short Physiological effects of two driving pressure-based methods to set positive end-expiratory pressure during one lung ventilation
title_sort physiological effects of two driving pressure-based methods to set positive end-expiratory pressure during one lung ventilation
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7439797/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32816177
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10877-020-00582-z
work_keys_str_mv AT spadarosavino physiologicaleffectsoftwodrivingpressurebasedmethodstosetpositiveendexpiratorypressureduringonelungventilation
AT grassosalvatore physiologicaleffectsoftwodrivingpressurebasedmethodstosetpositiveendexpiratorypressureduringonelungventilation
AT karbingdanstieper physiologicaleffectsoftwodrivingpressurebasedmethodstosetpositiveendexpiratorypressureduringonelungventilation
AT santorogiuseppe physiologicaleffectsoftwodrivingpressurebasedmethodstosetpositiveendexpiratorypressureduringonelungventilation
AT cavallescogiorgio physiologicaleffectsoftwodrivingpressurebasedmethodstosetpositiveendexpiratorypressureduringonelungventilation
AT maniscalcopio physiologicaleffectsoftwodrivingpressurebasedmethodstosetpositiveendexpiratorypressureduringonelungventilation
AT murgolofrancesca physiologicaleffectsoftwodrivingpressurebasedmethodstosetpositiveendexpiratorypressureduringonelungventilation
AT dimussirosa physiologicaleffectsoftwodrivingpressurebasedmethodstosetpositiveendexpiratorypressureduringonelungventilation
AT ragazziriccardo physiologicaleffectsoftwodrivingpressurebasedmethodstosetpositiveendexpiratorypressureduringonelungventilation
AT reesstephenedward physiologicaleffectsoftwodrivingpressurebasedmethodstosetpositiveendexpiratorypressureduringonelungventilation
AT voltacarloalberto physiologicaleffectsoftwodrivingpressurebasedmethodstosetpositiveendexpiratorypressureduringonelungventilation
AT fogagnoloalberto physiologicaleffectsoftwodrivingpressurebasedmethodstosetpositiveendexpiratorypressureduringonelungventilation