Journal of clinical anesthesia · 2023
The effect of driving pressure-guided versus conventional mechanical ventilation strategy on pulmonary complications following on-pump cardiac surgery: A randomized clinical trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Xue-Fei, Jiang Rong-Juan, Mao Wen-Jie, Yu Hong, Xin Juan, Yu Hai
Аннотация
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur frequently and are associated with worse postoperative outcomes in cardiac surgical patients. The advantage of driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy in decreasing pulmonary complications remains to be definitively established. We aimed to investigate the effect of intraoperative driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy compared with conventional lung-protective ventilation on pulmonary complications following on-pump cardiac surgery.
DESIGN: Prospective, two-arm, randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: The West China university hospital in Sichuan, China.
PATIENTS: Adult patients who were scheduled for elective on-pump cardiac surgery were enrolled in the study.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery were randomized to receive driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy based on positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration or conventional lung-protective ventilation strategy with fixed 5 cmH2O of PEEP.
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome of pulmonary complications (including acute respiratory distress syndrome, atelectasis, pneumonia, pleural effusion, and pneumothorax) within the first 7 postoperative days were prospectively identified. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary complication severity, ICU length of stay, and in-hospital and 30-day mortality.
MAIN RESULTS: Between August 2020 and July 2021, we enrolled 694 eligible patients who were included in the final analysis. Postoperative pulmonary complications occurred in 140 (40.3%) patients in the driving pressure group and 142 (40.9%) in the conventional group (relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.18; P = 0.877). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference between study groups regarding the incidence of primary outcome. The driving pressure group had less atelectasis than the conventional group (11.5% vs 17.0%; relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.98; P = 0.039). Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups.
CONCLUSION: Among patients who underwent on-pump cardiac surgery, the use of driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy did not reduce the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications when compared with conventional lung-protective ventilation strategy.
DESIGN: Prospective, two-arm, randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: The West China university hospital in Sichuan, China.
PATIENTS: Adult patients who were scheduled for elective on-pump cardiac surgery were enrolled in the study.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery were randomized to receive driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy based on positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration or conventional lung-protective ventilation strategy with fixed 5 cmH2O of PEEP.
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome of pulmonary complications (including acute respiratory distress syndrome, atelectasis, pneumonia, pleural effusion, and pneumothorax) within the first 7 postoperative days were prospectively identified. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary complication severity, ICU length of stay, and in-hospital and 30-day mortality.
MAIN RESULTS: Between August 2020 and July 2021, we enrolled 694 eligible patients who were included in the final analysis. Postoperative pulmonary complications occurred in 140 (40.3%) patients in the driving pressure group and 142 (40.9%) in the conventional group (relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.18; P = 0.877). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference between study groups regarding the incidence of primary outcome. The driving pressure group had less atelectasis than the conventional group (11.5% vs 17.0%; relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.98; P = 0.039). Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups.
CONCLUSION: Among patients who underwent on-pump cardiac surgery, the use of driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy did not reduce the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications when compared with conventional lung-protective ventilation strategy.