Intraoperative individualization of positive-end-expiratory pressure through electrical impedance tomography or esophageal pressure assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose: This systematic review of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analyses aimed to compare the effects on intraoperative arterial oxygen tension to inspired oxygen fraction ratio (PaO2/FiO2), exerted by positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) individualized trough electrical impedance tomography (EIT) or esophageal pressure (Pes) assessment (intervention) vs. PEEP not tailored on EIT or Pes (control), in patients undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery with an open or laparoscopic/robotic approach. Methods: PUBMED®, EMBASE®, and Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register were searched for observational studies and RCTs from inception to the end of August 2022. Inclusion criteria were: RCTs comparing PEEP titrated on EIT/Pes assessment vs. PEEP not individualized on EIT/Pes and reporting intraoperative PaO2/FiO2. Two authors independently extracted data from the enrolled investigations. Data are reported as mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Six RCTs were included for a total of 240 patients undergoing general anesthesia for surgery, of whom 117 subjects in the intervention group and 123 subjects in the control group. The intraoperative mean PaO2/FiO2 was 69.6 (95%CI 32.-106.4 ) mmHg higher in the intervention group as compared with the control group with 81.4% between-study heterogeneity (p < 0.01). However, at meta-regression, the between-study heterogeneity diminished to 44.96% when data were moderated for body mass index (estimate 3.45, 95%CI 0.78-6.11, p = 0.011). Conclusions: In patients undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery with an open or laparoscopic/robotic approach, PEEP personalized by EIT or Pes allowed the achievement of a better intraoperative oxygenation compared to PEEP not individualized through EIT or Pes. Prospero registration number: CRD 42021218306, 30/01/2023

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background: Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. Methods: In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings: Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42·4% vs 44·2%; absolute difference -1·69 [-9·58 to 6·11] p=0·67; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5-8] vs 6 [5-8] cm H2O; p=0·0011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30·5% vs 19·9%; p=0·0004; adjusted effect 16·41% [95% CI 9·52-23·52]; p&lt;0·0001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0·80 [95% CI 0·75-0·86]; p&lt;0·0001). Interpretation: Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status