通气模式对腹部手术中高危患者术后肺部并发症的影响:随机对照试验。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Xuefei Li , Yi Xu , Zaili Wang , Weiwei Wang , Qiansu Luo , Qianglin Yi , Hai Yu
{"title":"通气模式对腹部手术中高危患者术后肺部并发症的影响:随机对照试验。","authors":"Xuefei Li ,&nbsp;Yi Xu ,&nbsp;Zaili Wang ,&nbsp;Weiwei Wang ,&nbsp;Qiansu Luo ,&nbsp;Qianglin Yi ,&nbsp;Hai Yu","doi":"10.1016/j.accpm.2024.101423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The effect of different mechanical ventilation modes on pulmonary outcome after abdominal surgery remains unclear. We evaluated the effects of three common ventilation modes on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) among intermediate- to high-risk patients undergoing abdominal surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This randomized clinical trial enrolled adult patients at intermediate or high risk of PPCs who were scheduled for abdominal surgery. Participants were randomized to receive one of three modes of mechanical ventilation modes: volume-controlled ventilation (VCV), pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV), and pressure-control with volume-guaranteed ventilation (PCV-VG). Lung-protective ventilation strategy was implemented in all groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite of pulmonary complications within the first 7 postoperative days. Pulmonary complications within 30 postoperative days, the severity grade of PPCs, and other secondary outcomes were also analyzed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 1365 patients were randomized and 1349 were analyzed. The primary outcome occurred in 98 (21.8%) in the VCV group, 95 (22.1%) in the PCV group, and 101 (22.5%) in the PCV-VG group (<em>P</em> = 0.865). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in terms of the incidence of pulmonary complications within postoperative 30 days, severity grade of PPCs, and other secondary outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In intermediate- to high-risk patients undergoing abdominal surgery, the choice of ventilation mode did not affect the risk of PPCs.</div></div><div><h3>Trial Registration</h3><div>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, entry ChiCTR1900025880.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48762,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine","volume":"43 6","pages":"Article 101423"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of ventilation mode on postoperative pulmonary complications among intermediate- to high-risk patients undergoing abdominal surgery: A randomized controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Xuefei Li ,&nbsp;Yi Xu ,&nbsp;Zaili Wang ,&nbsp;Weiwei Wang ,&nbsp;Qiansu Luo ,&nbsp;Qianglin Yi ,&nbsp;Hai Yu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.accpm.2024.101423\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The effect of different mechanical ventilation modes on pulmonary outcome after abdominal surgery remains unclear. We evaluated the effects of three common ventilation modes on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) among intermediate- to high-risk patients undergoing abdominal surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This randomized clinical trial enrolled adult patients at intermediate or high risk of PPCs who were scheduled for abdominal surgery. Participants were randomized to receive one of three modes of mechanical ventilation modes: volume-controlled ventilation (VCV), pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV), and pressure-control with volume-guaranteed ventilation (PCV-VG). Lung-protective ventilation strategy was implemented in all groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite of pulmonary complications within the first 7 postoperative days. Pulmonary complications within 30 postoperative days, the severity grade of PPCs, and other secondary outcomes were also analyzed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 1365 patients were randomized and 1349 were analyzed. The primary outcome occurred in 98 (21.8%) in the VCV group, 95 (22.1%) in the PCV group, and 101 (22.5%) in the PCV-VG group (<em>P</em> = 0.865). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in terms of the incidence of pulmonary complications within postoperative 30 days, severity grade of PPCs, and other secondary outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In intermediate- to high-risk patients undergoing abdominal surgery, the choice of ventilation mode did not affect the risk of PPCs.</div></div><div><h3>Trial Registration</h3><div>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, entry ChiCTR1900025880.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48762,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\"43 6\",\"pages\":\"Article 101423\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235255682400081X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235255682400081X","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

背景:不同的机械通气模式对腹部手术后肺部预后的影响仍不明确。我们评估了三种常见通气模式对腹部手术中高危患者术后肺部并发症(PPCs)的影响:这项随机临床试验招募了计划接受腹部手术的中高危成人患者。参与者被随机分配接受三种机械通气模式中的一种:容量控制通气(VCV)、压力控制通气(PCV)和带容量保证的压力控制通气(PCV-VG)。所有组别均采用肺保护通气策略。主要结果是术后 7 天内肺部并发症的综合发生率。此外,还分析了术后 30 天内的肺部并发症、PPCs 的严重程度等级以及其他次要结果:共有 1365 名患者接受了随机治疗,其中 1349 人接受了分析。VCV 组有 98 例(21.8%)、PCV 组有 95 例(22.1%)、PCV-VG 组有 101 例(22.5%)出现主要结局(P = 0.865)。此外,在术后 30 天内肺部并发症的发生率、PPCs 的严重程度等级以及其他次要结果方面,三组之间没有显著的统计学差异:结论:对于接受腹部手术的中高危患者,通气模式的选择不会影响PPCs的风险:试验注册:中国临床试验注册中心,注册号:ChiCTR1900025880。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of ventilation mode on postoperative pulmonary complications among intermediate- to high-risk patients undergoing abdominal surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Background

The effect of different mechanical ventilation modes on pulmonary outcome after abdominal surgery remains unclear. We evaluated the effects of three common ventilation modes on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) among intermediate- to high-risk patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

Methods

This randomized clinical trial enrolled adult patients at intermediate or high risk of PPCs who were scheduled for abdominal surgery. Participants were randomized to receive one of three modes of mechanical ventilation modes: volume-controlled ventilation (VCV), pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV), and pressure-control with volume-guaranteed ventilation (PCV-VG). Lung-protective ventilation strategy was implemented in all groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite of pulmonary complications within the first 7 postoperative days. Pulmonary complications within 30 postoperative days, the severity grade of PPCs, and other secondary outcomes were also analyzed.

Results

A total of 1365 patients were randomized and 1349 were analyzed. The primary outcome occurred in 98 (21.8%) in the VCV group, 95 (22.1%) in the PCV group, and 101 (22.5%) in the PCV-VG group (P = 0.865). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in terms of the incidence of pulmonary complications within postoperative 30 days, severity grade of PPCs, and other secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

In intermediate- to high-risk patients undergoing abdominal surgery, the choice of ventilation mode did not affect the risk of PPCs.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, entry ChiCTR1900025880.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
5.50%
发文量
150
审稿时长
18 days
期刊介绍: Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain Medicine (formerly Annales Françaises d''Anesthésie et de Réanimation) publishes in English the highest quality original material, both scientific and clinical, on all aspects of anaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine.
×
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