Improving lung protective mechanical ventilation: the individualised intraoperative open-lung approach

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Carlos Ferrando , Jordi Vallverdú , Luigi Zattera , Gerardo Tusman , Fernando Suárez-Sipmann
{"title":"Improving lung protective mechanical ventilation: the individualised intraoperative open-lung approach","authors":"Carlos Ferrando ,&nbsp;Jordi Vallverdú ,&nbsp;Luigi Zattera ,&nbsp;Gerardo Tusman ,&nbsp;Fernando Suárez-Sipmann","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.10.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Despite the maturity and sophistication of anaesthesia workstations, improvements in our understanding of intraoperative mechanical ventilation, and use of less invasive surgical techniques, postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are still a common problem in surgical patients of all ages. PPCs are associated with a higher incidence of perioperative morbidity and mortality, longer hospital stays, and higher healthcare costs. PPCs are strongly associated with anaesthesia-induced atelectasis, which predisposes to lung damage when partially collapsed lungs are subjected to mechanical ventilation. Lung protective ventilation is thus a modifiable factor that can positively impact the incidence of PPCs after surgery. Intraoperative protective ventilation strategies have been based on two main but intrinsically different hypotheses: one based on sole reduction of tidal volume and pressures, using minimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), tolerating the presence of lung collapse, and the other also limiting tidal volume and pressures after actively resolving atelectasis by lung recruitment and PEEP individualisation, the individualised open-lung approach. We review the concepts of the individualised open-lung approach, its potential benefits, and outstanding questions. We conclude with a proposal for personalised lung protective ventilation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":"134 2","pages":"Pages 281-287"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091224006093","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the maturity and sophistication of anaesthesia workstations, improvements in our understanding of intraoperative mechanical ventilation, and use of less invasive surgical techniques, postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are still a common problem in surgical patients of all ages. PPCs are associated with a higher incidence of perioperative morbidity and mortality, longer hospital stays, and higher healthcare costs. PPCs are strongly associated with anaesthesia-induced atelectasis, which predisposes to lung damage when partially collapsed lungs are subjected to mechanical ventilation. Lung protective ventilation is thus a modifiable factor that can positively impact the incidence of PPCs after surgery. Intraoperative protective ventilation strategies have been based on two main but intrinsically different hypotheses: one based on sole reduction of tidal volume and pressures, using minimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), tolerating the presence of lung collapse, and the other also limiting tidal volume and pressures after actively resolving atelectasis by lung recruitment and PEEP individualisation, the individualised open-lung approach. We review the concepts of the individualised open-lung approach, its potential benefits, and outstanding questions. We conclude with a proposal for personalised lung protective ventilation.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信