驱动压力引导通气对脊柱手术俯卧位患者术后肺部并发症的影响:一项随机对照临床试验。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Journal of Investigative Surgery Pub Date : 2022-10-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-01 DOI:10.1080/08941939.2022.2107250
Di Jin, Huayue Liu, Xiaoqi Kong, Guangle Wei, Ke Peng, Hao Cheng, Fuhai Ji
{"title":"驱动压力引导通气对脊柱手术俯卧位患者术后肺部并发症的影响:一项随机对照临床试验。","authors":"Di Jin,&nbsp;Huayue Liu,&nbsp;Xiaoqi Kong,&nbsp;Guangle Wei,&nbsp;Ke Peng,&nbsp;Hao Cheng,&nbsp;Fuhai Ji","doi":"10.1080/08941939.2022.2107250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prolonged spinal surgery in the prone position may lead to postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). We aimed to compare the effects of driving pressure-guided ventilation versus conventional protective ventilation on postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position. We hypothesized that driving pressure-guided ventilation would be associated with a decreased incidence of PPC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 78 patients into this single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. The driving pressure (DP) group (n = 40) received a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg of predicted body weight, individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) which produced the lowest driving pressure (plateau pressure-PEEP), and a recruitment maneuver. The protective ventilation (PV) group (n = 38) received the same tidal volume and recruitment maneuver but with a fixed PEEP of 5 cm H<sub>2</sub>O. Our primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications based on Lung Ultrasound Scores (LUS) at the end of the surgery and the simplified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (sCPIS) on postoperative days (POD) 1 and 3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DP patients had lower LUS and POD1 sCPIS than the PV group (<i>p</i> < 0.01). DP patients had lower driving pressure during the surgery than PV patients (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Perioperative arterial blood gases and hemodynamic parameters were comparable between the two groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). The visual pain score (VAS) in postoperative days, drainage, and lengths of stay (LOS) were also similar between the two groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Driving pressure-guided ventilation during spinal surgery with a prolonged prone patient position may reduce the incidence of early postoperative pulmonary complications, compared with conventional protective ventilation.</p>","PeriodicalId":16200,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigative Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Driving Pressure-Guided Ventilation on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Prone-Positioned Patients Undergoing Spinal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Di Jin,&nbsp;Huayue Liu,&nbsp;Xiaoqi Kong,&nbsp;Guangle Wei,&nbsp;Ke Peng,&nbsp;Hao Cheng,&nbsp;Fuhai Ji\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08941939.2022.2107250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prolonged spinal surgery in the prone position may lead to postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). We aimed to compare the effects of driving pressure-guided ventilation versus conventional protective ventilation on postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position. We hypothesized that driving pressure-guided ventilation would be associated with a decreased incidence of PPC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 78 patients into this single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. The driving pressure (DP) group (n = 40) received a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg of predicted body weight, individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) which produced the lowest driving pressure (plateau pressure-PEEP), and a recruitment maneuver. The protective ventilation (PV) group (n = 38) received the same tidal volume and recruitment maneuver but with a fixed PEEP of 5 cm H<sub>2</sub>O. Our primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications based on Lung Ultrasound Scores (LUS) at the end of the surgery and the simplified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (sCPIS) on postoperative days (POD) 1 and 3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DP patients had lower LUS and POD1 sCPIS than the PV group (<i>p</i> < 0.01). DP patients had lower driving pressure during the surgery than PV patients (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Perioperative arterial blood gases and hemodynamic parameters were comparable between the two groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). The visual pain score (VAS) in postoperative days, drainage, and lengths of stay (LOS) were also similar between the two groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Driving pressure-guided ventilation during spinal surgery with a prolonged prone patient position may reduce the incidence of early postoperative pulmonary complications, compared with conventional protective ventilation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16200,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Investigative Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Investigative Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2022.2107250\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigative Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2022.2107250","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:长时间俯卧位脊柱手术可能导致术后肺部并发症(PPCs)。我们的目的是比较驱动压力引导通气与传统保护性通气对脊柱手术患者俯卧位术后肺部并发症的影响。我们假设驱动压力引导通气与PPC发生率降低有关。方法:78例患者入组单中心、双盲、随机对照试验。驱动压(DP)组(n = 40)接受潮汐容积为6 ml/kg预测体重,个体化呼气末正压(PEEP)产生最低驱动压(平台压力-PEEP),并进行招募操作。保护性通气(PV)组(n = 38)采用相同的潮气量和复吸手法,但固定PEEP为5 cm H2O。我们的主要结局是术后肺部并发症,基于手术结束时的肺超声评分(LUS)和术后第1天和第3天的简化临床肺部感染评分(sCPIS)。结果:DP患者LUS、POD1 sCPIS均低于PV组(p < 0.05)。两组患者术后天数、引流、住院时间(LOS)的视觉疼痛评分(VAS)差异无统计学意义(p > 0.05)。结论:与常规保护性通气相比,脊柱手术中患者长时间俯卧位驱动压力引导通气可降低术后早期肺部并发症的发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of Driving Pressure-Guided Ventilation on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Prone-Positioned Patients Undergoing Spinal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Background: Prolonged spinal surgery in the prone position may lead to postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). We aimed to compare the effects of driving pressure-guided ventilation versus conventional protective ventilation on postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position. We hypothesized that driving pressure-guided ventilation would be associated with a decreased incidence of PPC.

Methods: We enrolled 78 patients into this single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. The driving pressure (DP) group (n = 40) received a tidal volume of 6 ml/kg of predicted body weight, individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) which produced the lowest driving pressure (plateau pressure-PEEP), and a recruitment maneuver. The protective ventilation (PV) group (n = 38) received the same tidal volume and recruitment maneuver but with a fixed PEEP of 5 cm H2O. Our primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications based on Lung Ultrasound Scores (LUS) at the end of the surgery and the simplified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (sCPIS) on postoperative days (POD) 1 and 3.

Results: DP patients had lower LUS and POD1 sCPIS than the PV group (p < 0.01). DP patients had lower driving pressure during the surgery than PV patients (p < 0.01). Perioperative arterial blood gases and hemodynamic parameters were comparable between the two groups (p > 0.05). The visual pain score (VAS) in postoperative days, drainage, and lengths of stay (LOS) were also similar between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: Driving pressure-guided ventilation during spinal surgery with a prolonged prone patient position may reduce the incidence of early postoperative pulmonary complications, compared with conventional protective ventilation.

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
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Investigative Surgery publishes peer-reviewed scientific articles for the advancement of surgery, to the ultimate benefit of patient care and rehabilitation. It is the only journal that encompasses the individual and collaborative efforts of scientists in human and veterinary medicine, dentistry, basic and applied sciences, engineering, and law and ethics. The journal is dedicated to the publication of outstanding articles of interest to the surgical research community.
×
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