Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2021
Intraoperative lung protective ventilation in peritonitis patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: A randomised controlled trial.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Chowdhury Apala Roy, Subramanian Rajkumar, Maitra Souvik, Bhattacharjee Sulagna, Lakshmy Ramakrishnan, Baidya Dalim Kumar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lung protective ventilation (LPV) is recommended in acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, role of intraoperative LPV in elective laparotomy is controversial and it has not been evaluated in emergency laparotomy (EL). The aim of the study was to identify whether use of intraoperative LPV in EL in peritonitis patients reduces postoperative pulmonary complications (POPC).
METHODS: After institutional ethics committee approval and informed written consent, 98 adult patients undergoing EL for peritonitis were randomised into two groups. Patients in group 1 received LPV (tidal volume 6-8 ml/kg, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) 6-8 cm H2O and recruitment manoeuvre every 30 min) and patients in group 2 received conventional ventilation (tidal volume 10-12 ml/kg, without PEEP/recruitment). Primary outcome was incidence of POPC on day 7.
RESULTS: Data of 94 patients (n = 45 in group 1 & n = 49 in group 2) were available. Baseline demographic & laboratory parameters were comparable. Incidence of POPC was similar in both the groups [42.9% in group 1 vs. 53.3% in group 2; risk difference -10.4% (-30.6%, 9.6%); P = 0.31]. Mortality during hospital stay was 26.7% patients in group 1 and 26.5% patients in group 2 [risk difference (95% CI) 0.14%, (-17.7, 18.0); P = 0.98]. Length of hospital stay [median interquartile range (IQR) 13 (9-18) days in group 1 vs. 13 (8-21) days in group 2; P = 0.82] and length of intensive care unit stay [median (IQR) 7 (4-10) days vs. 6 (3-12) days; P = 0.88] were also similar in both groups.
CONCLUSION: LPV during EL in peritonitis patients does not reduce the incidence of POPC compared to conventional ventilation.
METHODS: After institutional ethics committee approval and informed written consent, 98 adult patients undergoing EL for peritonitis were randomised into two groups. Patients in group 1 received LPV (tidal volume 6-8 ml/kg, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) 6-8 cm H2O and recruitment manoeuvre every 30 min) and patients in group 2 received conventional ventilation (tidal volume 10-12 ml/kg, without PEEP/recruitment). Primary outcome was incidence of POPC on day 7.
RESULTS: Data of 94 patients (n = 45 in group 1 & n = 49 in group 2) were available. Baseline demographic & laboratory parameters were comparable. Incidence of POPC was similar in both the groups [42.9% in group 1 vs. 53.3% in group 2; risk difference -10.4% (-30.6%, 9.6%); P = 0.31]. Mortality during hospital stay was 26.7% patients in group 1 and 26.5% patients in group 2 [risk difference (95% CI) 0.14%, (-17.7, 18.0); P = 0.98]. Length of hospital stay [median interquartile range (IQR) 13 (9-18) days in group 1 vs. 13 (8-21) days in group 2; P = 0.82] and length of intensive care unit stay [median (IQR) 7 (4-10) days vs. 6 (3-12) days; P = 0.88] were also similar in both groups.
CONCLUSION: LPV during EL in peritonitis patients does not reduce the incidence of POPC compared to conventional ventilation.