接受择期上腹部大手术的成年患者胸腔硬膜外麻醉与驱动压力之间的关系:随机对照试验。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Xuan Li, Yi Yang, Qinyu Zhang, Yuyang Zhu, Wenxia Xu, Yufei Zhao, Yuan Liu, Wenqiang Xue, Peng Yan, Shuang Li, Jie Huang, Yu Fang
{"title":"接受择期上腹部大手术的成年患者胸腔硬膜外麻醉与驱动压力之间的关系:随机对照试验。","authors":"Xuan Li, Yi Yang, Qinyu Zhang, Yuyang Zhu, Wenxia Xu, Yufei Zhao, Yuan Liu, Wenqiang Xue, Peng Yan, Shuang Li, Jie Huang, Yu Fang","doi":"10.1186/s12871-024-02808-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA) is associated with a knowledge gap regarding its mechanisms in lung protection and reduction of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Driving pressure (ΔP), an alternative indicator of alveolar strain, is closely linked to reduced PPCs with lower ΔP values. We aim to investigate whether TEA contributes to lung protection by lowering ΔP during mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective, randomized, patient and evaluator-blinded parallel study, adult patients scheduled for elective major upper abdominal surgery were assigned to either the TEA group with combined thoracic epidural anesthesia and general anesthesia (TEA-GA) (n = 30) or the control group with only general anesthesia (GA) (n = 30).</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>The primary outcome was the minimum ΔP determined based on positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) after intubation. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PPCs within seven days, the minimum ΔP at various time points, blood gas analysis, intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The TEA group had a significantly lower minimum ΔP titrated based on PEEP compared to the control group (11.23 ± 2.19 cmH<sub>2</sub>O vs. 12.67 ± 2.70 cmH<sub>2</sub>O; P = 0.028). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that intraoperative TEA application (compared with its absence; unstandardized beta coefficient (B) = -1.289; P = 0.008) significantly correlated with ΔP. The incidence of PPCs did not differ significantly between the two groups (8 of 30 [26.7%] vs. 12 of 30 [40%]; P = 0.273), but the incidence of atelectasis in the TEA group was significantly lower than in the control group (5 of 30 [16.7%] vs. 12 of 30 [40.7%]; P = 0.012). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that ΔP was the only variable significantly associated with PPCs (Adjusted Odds Ratio [OR] = 2.190; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.300 to 3.689; P = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to GA, TEA-GA can reduce intraoperative ΔP in patients undergoing major upper abdominal surgery, especially those undergoing laparoscopic surgery. However, compared to GA combined with ΔP-guided ventilation, TEA-GA combined with ΔP-guided ventilation does not reduce the risk of PPCs. There was no significant difference in the total use of various vasoactive drugs between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number ChiCTR2300068778 date of registration February 28, 2023).</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":"24 1","pages":"434"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11600644/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association between thoracic epidural anesthesia and driving pressure in adult patients undergoing elective major upper abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Xuan Li, Yi Yang, Qinyu Zhang, Yuyang Zhu, Wenxia Xu, Yufei Zhao, Yuan Liu, Wenqiang Xue, Peng Yan, Shuang Li, Jie Huang, Yu Fang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12871-024-02808-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA) is associated with a knowledge gap regarding its mechanisms in lung protection and reduction of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Driving pressure (ΔP), an alternative indicator of alveolar strain, is closely linked to reduced PPCs with lower ΔP values. We aim to investigate whether TEA contributes to lung protection by lowering ΔP during mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective, randomized, patient and evaluator-blinded parallel study, adult patients scheduled for elective major upper abdominal surgery were assigned to either the TEA group with combined thoracic epidural anesthesia and general anesthesia (TEA-GA) (n = 30) or the control group with only general anesthesia (GA) (n = 30).</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>The primary outcome was the minimum ΔP determined based on positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) after intubation. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PPCs within seven days, the minimum ΔP at various time points, blood gas analysis, intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The TEA group had a significantly lower minimum ΔP titrated based on PEEP compared to the control group (11.23 ± 2.19 cmH<sub>2</sub>O vs. 12.67 ± 2.70 cmH<sub>2</sub>O; P = 0.028). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that intraoperative TEA application (compared with its absence; unstandardized beta coefficient (B) = -1.289; P = 0.008) significantly correlated with ΔP. The incidence of PPCs did not differ significantly between the two groups (8 of 30 [26.7%] vs. 12 of 30 [40%]; P = 0.273), but the incidence of atelectasis in the TEA group was significantly lower than in the control group (5 of 30 [16.7%] vs. 12 of 30 [40.7%]; P = 0.012). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that ΔP was the only variable significantly associated with PPCs (Adjusted Odds Ratio [OR] = 2.190; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.300 to 3.689; P = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to GA, TEA-GA can reduce intraoperative ΔP in patients undergoing major upper abdominal surgery, especially those undergoing laparoscopic surgery. However, compared to GA combined with ΔP-guided ventilation, TEA-GA combined with ΔP-guided ventilation does not reduce the risk of PPCs. There was no significant difference in the total use of various vasoactive drugs between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number ChiCTR2300068778 date of registration February 28, 2023).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"434\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11600644/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02808-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02808-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:胸腔硬膜外麻醉(TEA)在保护肺部和减少术后肺部并发症(PPCs)的机制方面存在知识空白。驱动压力(ΔP)是肺泡应变的替代指标,ΔP值越低,肺部并发症越少。我们旨在研究 TEA 是否能在机械通气期间通过降低 ΔP 来促进肺保护:在这项前瞻性、随机、患者和评估者双盲的平行研究中,计划接受择期上腹部大手术的成年患者被分配到胸硬膜外麻醉和全身麻醉联合(TEA-GA)的 TEA 组(n = 30)或仅接受全身麻醉(GA)的对照组(n = 30):主要结果是插管后根据呼气末正压 (PEEP) 确定的最小 ΔP。次要结果包括七天内 PPC 的发生率、不同时间点的最小 ΔP、血气分析、重症监护室(ICU)入院率、住院时间和 30 天死亡率:与对照组相比,根据 PEEP 滴定的 TEA 组最小 ΔP 明显较低(11.23 ± 2.19 cmH2O vs. 12.67 ± 2.70 cmH2O;P = 0.028)。多变量线性回归分析表明,术中使用 TEA(与不使用相比;非标准化贝塔系数 (B) = -1.289; P = 0.008)与 ΔP 显著相关。两组 PPC 的发生率无明显差异(30 例中有 8 例 [26.7%] 对 30 例中有 12 例 [40%];P = 0.273),但 TEA 组的肺不张发生率明显低于对照组(30 例中有 5 例 [16.7%] 对 30 例中有 12 例 [40.7%];P = 0.012)。多变量逻辑回归分析表明,ΔP 是与 PPCs 明显相关的唯一变量(调整后比值比 [OR] = 2.190;95% 置信区间 [CI]:1.300 至 3.689):结论:结论:与GA相比,TEA-GA可减少上腹部大手术患者,尤其是腹腔镜手术患者术中的ΔP。然而,与GA联合ΔP引导通气相比,TEA-GA联合ΔP引导通气并不能降低PPCs的风险。两组患者使用各种血管活性药物的总量无明显差异:本研究已在中国临床试验注册中心注册(注册号:ChiCTR2300068778,注册日期:2023年2月28日)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Association between thoracic epidural anesthesia and driving pressure in adult patients undergoing elective major upper abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

Background: Thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA) is associated with a knowledge gap regarding its mechanisms in lung protection and reduction of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Driving pressure (ΔP), an alternative indicator of alveolar strain, is closely linked to reduced PPCs with lower ΔP values. We aim to investigate whether TEA contributes to lung protection by lowering ΔP during mechanical ventilation.

Methods: In this prospective, randomized, patient and evaluator-blinded parallel study, adult patients scheduled for elective major upper abdominal surgery were assigned to either the TEA group with combined thoracic epidural anesthesia and general anesthesia (TEA-GA) (n = 30) or the control group with only general anesthesia (GA) (n = 30).

Measurements: The primary outcome was the minimum ΔP determined based on positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) after intubation. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PPCs within seven days, the minimum ΔP at various time points, blood gas analysis, intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality rate.

Results: The TEA group had a significantly lower minimum ΔP titrated based on PEEP compared to the control group (11.23 ± 2.19 cmH2O vs. 12.67 ± 2.70 cmH2O; P = 0.028). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that intraoperative TEA application (compared with its absence; unstandardized beta coefficient (B) = -1.289; P = 0.008) significantly correlated with ΔP. The incidence of PPCs did not differ significantly between the two groups (8 of 30 [26.7%] vs. 12 of 30 [40%]; P = 0.273), but the incidence of atelectasis in the TEA group was significantly lower than in the control group (5 of 30 [16.7%] vs. 12 of 30 [40.7%]; P = 0.012). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that ΔP was the only variable significantly associated with PPCs (Adjusted Odds Ratio [OR] = 2.190; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.300 to 3.689; P = 0.003).

Conclusion: Compared to GA, TEA-GA can reduce intraoperative ΔP in patients undergoing major upper abdominal surgery, especially those undergoing laparoscopic surgery. However, compared to GA combined with ΔP-guided ventilation, TEA-GA combined with ΔP-guided ventilation does not reduce the risk of PPCs. There was no significant difference in the total use of various vasoactive drugs between the two groups.

Trial registration: This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number ChiCTR2300068778 date of registration February 28, 2023).

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
BMC Anesthesiology
BMC Anesthesiology ANESTHESIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
349
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.
×
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