Open-lung ventilation and mechanical power in thoracic surgery: Post hoc analysis of a multicentre randomised trial.

IF 6.8 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Andres Zorrilla-Vaca, Enric Barbeta, Julian Librero, Carlos Ferrando
{"title":"Open-lung ventilation and mechanical power in thoracic surgery: Post hoc analysis of a multicentre randomised trial.","authors":"Andres Zorrilla-Vaca, Enric Barbeta, Julian Librero, Carlos Ferrando","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individualisation of positive-end expiratory pressure (PEEP) is an open-lung ventilation strategy associated with better respiratory mechanics. Mechanical power has been associated with lung injury in critical care settings, but the interaction between optimisation of PEEP and mechanical power during one-lung ventilation (OLV) remains poorly understood.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to determine the effect of individualisation of PEEP on mechanical power during OLV as well as to establish the association between mechanical power and postoperative pulmonary complications after thoracic surgery.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This is a post hoc analysis of a multicentre randomised trial.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Operating rooms.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Thoracic surgery cases requiring OLV.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Open-lung ventilation strategy (i.e. individualised PEEP titration based on respiratory compliance) versus standard PEEP. Mechanical power and its components were compared between both groups at five different time-points: two-lung ventilation (T0), baseline OLV (T1), 20 min after OLV (T2), end of OLV (T3) and before extubation (T4).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Our primary outcome included a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications within 30 days after surgery. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regressions were performed to assess associations between various thresholds of mechanical power and postoperative pulmonary complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total 1253 patients were included in this analysis, of which 635 received open-lung ventilation, and 618 received conventional ventilation. The median difference in mechanical power was higher in the open-lung ventilation group during OLV than in the control group at T2, T3 and T4: 1.39 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91 to 1.86] J min-1, 1.27 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.75) J min-1 and 2.12 (95% CI, 1.60 to 2.63) J min-1, respectively. While the resistive component of mechanical power was associated with postoperative pulmonary complications [odds ratio (OR), 1.07 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.13) per J min-1], the static component was protective [OR, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.98) per J min-1].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Individualisation of PEEP during OLV leads to nonclinically significant higher levels of mechanical power compared with standard PEEP. Each component of mechanical power seems to have different interactions with the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>NCT03182062.</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002271","RegionNum":2,"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

Background: Individualisation of positive-end expiratory pressure (PEEP) is an open-lung ventilation strategy associated with better respiratory mechanics. Mechanical power has been associated with lung injury in critical care settings, but the interaction between optimisation of PEEP and mechanical power during one-lung ventilation (OLV) remains poorly understood.

Objective: This study aimed to determine the effect of individualisation of PEEP on mechanical power during OLV as well as to establish the association between mechanical power and postoperative pulmonary complications after thoracic surgery.

Design: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicentre randomised trial.

Setting: Operating rooms.

Patients: Thoracic surgery cases requiring OLV.

Intervention: Open-lung ventilation strategy (i.e. individualised PEEP titration based on respiratory compliance) versus standard PEEP. Mechanical power and its components were compared between both groups at five different time-points: two-lung ventilation (T0), baseline OLV (T1), 20 min after OLV (T2), end of OLV (T3) and before extubation (T4).

Main outcome measures: Our primary outcome included a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications within 30 days after surgery. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regressions were performed to assess associations between various thresholds of mechanical power and postoperative pulmonary complications.

Results: A total 1253 patients were included in this analysis, of which 635 received open-lung ventilation, and 618 received conventional ventilation. The median difference in mechanical power was higher in the open-lung ventilation group during OLV than in the control group at T2, T3 and T4: 1.39 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91 to 1.86] J min-1, 1.27 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.75) J min-1 and 2.12 (95% CI, 1.60 to 2.63) J min-1, respectively. While the resistive component of mechanical power was associated with postoperative pulmonary complications [odds ratio (OR), 1.07 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.13) per J min-1], the static component was protective [OR, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.98) per J min-1].

Conclusion: Individualisation of PEEP during OLV leads to nonclinically significant higher levels of mechanical power compared with standard PEEP. Each component of mechanical power seems to have different interactions with the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications.

Trial registration: NCT03182062.

胸外科手术中的开肺通气和机械动力:一项多中心随机试验的事后分析。
背景:个体化呼气末正压通气(PEEP)是一种与更好的呼吸力学相关的开肺通气策略。在重症监护环境中,机械功率与肺损伤有关,但在单肺通气(OLV)期间,PEEP优化与机械功率之间的相互作用仍然知之甚少。目的:本研究旨在确定PEEP个体化对OLV术中机械功率的影响,并建立机械功率与胸外科术后肺部并发症之间的关系。设计:这是一项多中心随机试验的事后分析。设置:手术室。患者:需要OLV的胸外科病例。干预措施:开放肺通气策略(即基于呼吸顺应性的个体化PEEP滴定)与标准PEEP。比较两组在两肺通气(T0)、基线OLV (T1)、OLV后20 min (T2)、OLV结束(T3)和拔管前(T4)五个不同时间点的机械功率及其组成。主要结局指标:我们的主要结局包括术后30天内肺部并发症的综合情况。采用多变量混合效应logistic回归来评估不同机械功率阈值与术后肺部并发症之间的关系。结果:共纳入1253例患者,其中开肺通气635例,常规通气618例。在T2, T3和T4时,OLV期间开放肺通气组的机械功率中位数差值高于对照组:分别为1.39[95%可信区间(CI), 0.91 ~ 1.86] J min-1, 1.27 (95% CI, 0.79 ~ 1.75) J min-1和2.12 (95% CI, 1.60 ~ 2.63) J min-1。机械动力的阻力因素与术后肺部并发症相关[比值比(OR), 1.07 (95% CI, 1.01至1.13)/ J min-1],而静态因素具有保护作用[OR, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.85至0.98)/ J min-1]。结论:与标准PEEP相比,OLV期间PEEP个体化导致机械功率水平升高,无临床意义。机械动力的各个组成部分似乎与术后肺部并发症的发生有不同的相互作用。试验注册:NCT03182062。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
351
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信