Driving pressure during general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery (DESIGNATION) : study protocol of a randomized clinical trial

Background Intraoperative driving pressure (Delta P) is associated with development of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC). When tidal volume (V-T) is kept constant, Delta P may change according to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)-induced changes in lung aeration. Delta P may decrease if PEEP leads to a recruitment of collapsed lung tissue but will increase if PEEP mainly causes pulmonary overdistension. This study tests the hypothesis that individualized high PEEP, when compared to fixed low PEEP, protects against PPC in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery. Methods The "Driving prESsure durIng GeNeral AnesThesIa for Open abdomiNal surgery trial" (DESIGNATION) is an international, multicenter, two-group, double-blind randomized clinical superiority trial. A total of 1468 patients will be randomly assigned to one of the two intraoperative ventilation strategies. Investigators screen patients aged >= 18 years and with a body mass index <= 40 kg/m(2), scheduled for open abdominal surgery and at risk for PPC. Patients either receive an intraoperative ventilation strategy with individualized high PEEP with recruitment maneuvers (RM) ("individualized high PEEP") or one in which PEEP of 5 cm H2O without RM is used ("low PEEP"). In the "individualized high PEEP" group, PEEP is set at the level at which Delta P is lowest. In both groups of the trial, V-T is kept at 8 mL/kg predicted body weight. The primary endpoint is the occurrence of PPC, recorded as a collapsed composite of adverse pulmonary events. Discussion DESIGNATION will be the first randomized clinical trial that is adequately powered to compare the effects of individualized high PEEP with RM versus fixed low PEEP without RM on the occurrence of PPC after open abdominal surgery. The results of DESIGNATION will support anesthesiologists in their decisions regarding PEEP settings during open abdominal surgery

Epidemiology, practice of ventilation and outcome for patients at increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications

BACKGROUND Limited information exists about the epidemiology and outcome of surgical patients at increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), and how intraoperative ventilation was managed in these patients. OBJECTIVES To determine the incidence of surgical patients at increased risk of PPCs, and to compare the intraoperative ventilation management and postoperative outcomes with patients at low risk of PPCs. DESIGN This was a prospective international 1-week observational study using the ‘Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia risk score’ (ARISCAT score) for PPC for risk stratification. PATIENTS AND SETTING Adult patients requiring intraoperative ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery in 146 hospitals across 29 countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the incidence of patients at increased risk of PPCs based on the ARISCAT score. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative ventilatory management and clinical outcomes. RESULTS A total of 9864 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The incidence of patients at increased risk was 28.4%. The most frequently chosen tidal volume (VT) size was 500 ml, or 7 to 9 ml kg1 predicted body weight, slightly lower in patients at increased risk of PPCs. Levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were slightly higher in patients at increased risk of PPCs, with 14.3% receiving more than 5 cmH2O PEEP compared with 7.6% in patients at low risk of PPCs (P < 0.001). Patients with a predicted preoperative increased risk of PPCs developed PPCs more frequently: 19 versus 7%, relative risk (RR) 3.16 (95% confidence interval 2.76 to 3.61), P < 0.001) and had longer hospital stays. The only ventilatory factor associated with the occurrence of PPCs was the peak pressure. CONCLUSION The incidence of patients with a predicted increased risk of PPCs is high. A large proportion of patients receive high VT and low PEEP levels. PPCs occur frequently in patients at increased risk, with worse clinical outcome

International multicenter observational study on assessment of ventilatory management during general anaesthesia for robotic surgery and its effects on postoperative pulmonary complication (AVATaR) : study protocol and statistical analysis plan

Introduction: Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has emerged as an alternative minimally invasive surgical option. Despite its growing applicability, the frequent need for pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position could significantly affect respiratory mechanics during RAS. AVATaR is an international multicenter observational study aiming to assess the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC), to characterise current practices of mechanical ventilation (MV) and to evaluate a possible association between ventilatory parameters and PPC in patients undergoing RAS. Methods and analysis: AVATaR is an observational study of surgical patients undergoing MV for general anaesthesia for RAS. The primary outcome is the incidence of PPC during the first five postoperative days. Secondary outcomes include practice of MV, effect of surgical positioning on MV, effect of MV on clinical outcome and intraoperative complications. Ethics and dissemination: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein. The study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at international conferences. Trial registration number: NCT02989415; Pre-results

PReVENT - protective ventilation in patients without ARDS at start of ventilation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background It is uncertain whether lung-protective mechanical ventilation using low tidal volumes should be used in all critically ill patients, irrespective of the presence of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A low tidal volume strategy includes use of higher respiratory rates, which could be associated with increased sedation needs, a higher incidence of delirium, and an increased risk of patient-ventilator asynchrony and ICU-acquired weakness. Another alleged side-effect of low tidal volume ventilation is the risk of atelectasis. All of these could offset the beneficial effects of low tidal volume ventilation as found in patients with ARDS. Methods/Design PReVENT is a national multicenter randomized controlled trial in invasively ventilated ICU patients without ARDS with an anticipated duration of ventilation of longer than 24 hours in 5 ICUs in The Netherlands. Consecutive patients are randomly assigned to a low tidal volume strategy using tidal volumes from 4 to 6 ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW) or a high tidal volume ventilation strategy using tidal volumes from 8 to 10 ml/kg PBW. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28. Secondary endpoints include ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU and hospital mortality, the incidence of pulmonary complications, including ARDS, pneumonia, atelectasis, and pneumothorax, the cumulative use and duration of sedatives and neuromuscular blocking agents, incidence of ICU delirium, and the need for decreasing of instrumental dead space. Discussion PReVENT is the first randomized controlled trial comparing a low tidal volume strategy with a high tidal volume strategy, in patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation, that recruits a sufficient number of patients to test the hypothesis that a low tidal volume strategy benefits patients without ARDS with regard to a clinically relevant endpoin

Assessment of pulmonary edema: principles and practice

Pulmonary edema increasingly is recognized as a perioperative complication affecting outcome. Several risk factors have been identified, including those of cardiogenic origin, such as heart failure or excessive fluid administration, and those related to increased pulmonary capillary permeability secondary to inflammatory mediators. Effective treatment requires prompt diagnosis and early intervention. Consequently, over the past 2 centuries a concentrated effort to develop clinical tools to rapidly diagnose pulmonary edema and track response to treatment has occurred. The ideal properties of such a tool would include high sensitivity and specificity, easy availability, and the ability to diagnose early accumulation of lung water before the development of the full clinical presentation. In addition, clinicians highly value the ability to precisely quantify extravascular lung water accumulation and differentiate hydrostatic from high permeability etiologies of pulmonary edema. In this review, advances in understanding the physiology of extravascular lung water accumulation in health and in disease and the various mechanisms that protect against the development of pulmonary edema under physiologic conditions are discussed. In addition, the various bedside modalities available to diagnose early accumulation of extravascular lung water and pulmonary edema, including chest auscultation, chest roentgenography, lung ultrasonography, and transpulmonary thermodilution, are examined. Furthermore, advantages and limitations of these methods for the operating room and intensive care unit that are critical for proper modality selection in each individual case are explored

An investigation into the effects of commencing haemodialysis in the critically ill

&lt;b&gt;Introduction:&lt;/b&gt; We have aimed to describe haemodynamic changes when haemodialysis is instituted in the critically ill. 3 hypotheses are tested: 1)The initial session is associated with cardiovascular instability, 2)The initial session is associated with more cardiovascular instability compared to subsequent sessions, and 3)Looking at unstable sessions alone, there will be a greater proportion of potentially harmful changes in the initial sessions compared to subsequent ones. &lt;b&gt;Methods:&lt;/b&gt; Data was collected for 209 patients, identifying 1605 dialysis sessions. Analysis was performed on hourly records, classifying sessions as stable/unstable by a cutoff of &gt;+/-20% change in baseline physiology (HR/MAP). Data from 3 hours prior, and 4 hours after dialysis was included, and average and minimum values derived. 3 time comparisons were made (pre-HD:during, during HD:post, pre-HD:post). Initial sessions were analysed separately from subsequent sessions to derive 2 groups. If a session was identified as being unstable, then the nature of instability was examined by recording whether changes crossed defined physiological ranges. The changes seen in unstable sessions could be described as to their effects: being harmful/potentially harmful, or beneficial/potentially beneficial. &lt;b&gt;Results:&lt;/b&gt; Discarding incomplete data, 181 initial and 1382 subsequent sessions were analysed. A session was deemed to be stable if there was no significant change (&gt;+/-20%) in the time-averaged or minimum MAP/HR across time comparisons. By this definition 85/181 initial sessions were unstable (47%, 95% CI SEM 39.8-54.2). Therefore Hypothesis 1 is accepted. This compares to 44% of subsequent sessions (95% CI 41.1-46.3). Comparing these proportions and their respective CI gives a 95% CI for the standard error of the difference of -4% to 10%. Therefore Hypothesis 2 is rejected. In initial sessions there were 92/1020 harmful changes. This gives a proportion of 9.0% (95% CI SEM 7.4-10.9). In the subsequent sessions there were 712/7248 harmful changes. This gives a proportion of 9.8% (95% CI SEM 9.1-10.5). Comparing the two unpaired proportions gives a difference of -0.08% with a 95% CI of the SE of the difference of -2.5 to +1.2. Hypothesis 3 is rejected. Fisher’s exact test gives a result of p=0.68, reinforcing the lack of significant variance. &lt;b&gt;Conclusions:&lt;/b&gt; Our results reject the claims that using haemodialysis is an inherently unstable choice of therapy. Although proportionally more of the initial sessions are classed as unstable, the majority of MAP and HR changes are beneficial in nature

Recommendations for the management of MPS IVA: systematic evidence- and consensus-based guidance.

IntroductionMucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) IVA or Morquio A syndrome is an autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder (LSD) caused by deficiency of the N-acetylgalactosamine-6-sulfatase (GALNS) enzyme, which impairs lysosomal degradation of keratan sulphate and chondroitin-6-sulphate. The multiple clinical manifestations of MPS IVA present numerous challenges for management and necessitate the need for individualised treatment. Although treatment guidelines are available, the methodology used to develop this guidance has come under increased scrutiny. This programme was conducted to provide evidence-based, expert-agreed recommendations to optimise management of MPS IVA.MethodsTwenty six international healthcare professionals across multiple disciplines, with expertise in managing MPS IVA, and three patient advocates formed the Steering Committee (SC) and contributed to the development of this guidance. Representatives from six Patient Advocacy Groups (PAGs) were interviewed to gain insights on patient perspectives. A modified-Delphi methodology was used to demonstrate consensus among a wider group of healthcare professionals with experience managing patients with MPS IVA and the manuscript was evaluated against the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument by three independent reviewers.ResultsA total of 87 guidance statements were developed covering five domains: (1) general management principles; (2) recommended routine monitoring and assessments; (3) disease-modifying interventions (enzyme replacement therapy [ERT] and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation [HSCT]); (4) interventions to support respiratory and sleep disorders; (5) anaesthetics and surgical interventions (including spinal, limb, ophthalmic, cardio-thoracic and ear-nose-throat [ENT] surgeries). Consensus was reached on all statements after two rounds of voting. The overall guideline AGREE II assessment score obtained for the development of the guidance was 5.3/7 (where 1 represents the lowest quality and 7 represents the highest quality of guidance).ConclusionThis manuscript provides evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the management of patients with MPS IVA and is for use by healthcare professionals that manage the holistic care of patients with the intention to improve clinical- and patient-reported outcomes and enhance patient quality of life. It is recognised that the guidance provided represents a point in time and further research is required to address current knowledge and evidence gaps

Lung anatomy, energy load, and ventilator-induced lung injury

High tidal volume can cause ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), but positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is thought to be protective. We aimed to find the volumetric VILI threshold and see whether PEEP is protective per se or indirectly