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

Perioperative Lung Protection: Clinical Implications

In the past, it was common practice to use a high tidal volume (VT) during intraoperative ventilation, because this reduced the need for high oxygen fractions to compensate for the ventilation-perfusion mismatches due to atelectasis in a time when it was uncommon to use positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in the operating room. Convincing and increasing evidence for harm induced by ventilation with a high VThas emerged over recent decades, also in the operating room, and by now intraoperative ventilation with a low VTis a well-adopted approach. There is less certainty about the level of PEEP during intraoperative ventilation. Evidence for benefit and harm of higher PEEP during intraoperative ventilation is at least contradicting. While some PEEP may prevent lung injury through reduction of atelectasis, higher PEEP is undeniably associated with an increased risk of intraoperative hypotension that frequently requires administration of vasoactive drugs. The optimal level of inspired oxygen fraction (Fio2) during surgery is even more uncertain. The suggestion that hyperoxemia prevents against surgical site infections has not been confirmed in recent research. In addition, gas absorption-induced atelectasis and its association with adverse outcomes like postoperative pulmonary complications actually makes use of a high Fio2less attractive. Based on the available evidence, we recommend the use of a low VTof 6-8 mL/kg predicted body weight in all surgery patients, and to restrict use of a high PEEP and high Fio2during intraoperative ventilation to cases in which hypoxemia develops. Here, we prefer to first increase Fio2before using high PEEP

Sex differences in use of low tidal volume ventilation in COVID-19—insights from the PRoVENT–COVID study

The purpose of this study was to compare and understand differences in the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) between females and males with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This is a post-hoc analysis of an observational study in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19 in 22 ICUs in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was the use of LTVV, defined as having received a median tidal volume (VT) ≤6 ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW) during controlled ventilation. A mediation analysis was used to investigate the impact of anthropometric factors, next to the impact of sex per se. The analysis included 934 patients, 251 females and 683 males. All the patients had ARDS, and there were no differences in ARDS severity between the sexes. On the first day of ventilation, females received ventilation with a higher median VT compared with males [6.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 6.0–7.6 vs. 6.3 (IQR 5.8–6.9) ml/kg PBW; p < 0.001]. Consequently, females received LTVV less often than males (23 vs. 34%; p = 0.003). The difference in the use of LTVV became smaller but persisted over the next days (27 vs. 36%; p = 0.046 at day 2 and 28 vs. 38%; p = 0.030 at day 3). The difference in the use LTVV was significantly mediated by sex per se [average direct effect of the female sex, 7.5% (95% CI, 1.7–13.3%); p = 0.011] and by differences in the body height [average causal mediation effect, −17.5% (−21.5 to −13.5%); p < 0.001], but not by the differences in actual body weight [average causal mediation effect, 0.2% (−0.8 to 1.2%); p = 0.715]. In conclusion, in this cohort of patients with ARDS related to COVID-19, females received LTVV less often than males in the first days of invasive ventilation. The difference in the use of LTVV was mainly driven by an anthropometric factor, namely, body height. Use of LTVV may improve by paying attention to correct titration of VT, which should be based on PBW, which is a function of body height

Sex differences in use of low tidal volume ventilation in COVID-19—insights from the PRoVENT–COVID study

The purpose of this study was to compare and understand differences in the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) between females and males with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This is a post-hoc analysis of an observational study in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19 in 22 ICUs in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was the use of LTVV, defined as having received a median tidal volume (VT) ≤6 ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW) during controlled ventilation. A mediation analysis was used to investigate the impact of anthropometric factors, next to the impact of sex per se. The analysis included 934 patients, 251 females and 683 males. All the patients had ARDS, and there were no differences in ARDS severity between the sexes. On the first day of ventilation, females received ventilation with a higher median VT compared with males [6.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 6.0–7.6 vs. 6.3 (IQR 5.8–6.9) ml/kg PBW; p < 0.001]. Consequently, females received LTVV less often than males (23 vs. 34%; p = 0.003). The difference in the use of LTVV became smaller but persisted over the next days (27 vs. 36%; p = 0.046 at day 2 and 28 vs. 38%; p = 0.030 at day 3). The difference in the use LTVV was significantly mediated by sex per se [average direct effect of the female sex, 7.5% (95% CI, 1.7–13.3%); p = 0.011] and by differences in the body height [average causal mediation effect, −17.5% (−21.5 to −13.5%); p < 0.001], but not by the differences in actual body weight [average causal mediation effect, 0.2% (−0.8 to 1.2%); p = 0.715]. In conclusion, in this cohort of patients with ARDS related to COVID-19, females received LTVV less often than males in the first days of invasive ventilation. The difference in the use of LTVV was mainly driven by an anthropometric factor, namely, body height. Use of LTVV may improve by paying attention to correct titration of VT, which should be based on PBW, which is a function of body height

Closed-Loop ventilation using sidestream versus mainstream capnography for automated adjustments of minute ventilation-A randomized clinical trial in cardiac surgery patients.

BackgroundINTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) is a closed-loop ventilation mode that uses capnography to adjust tidal volume (VT) and respiratory rate according to a user-set end-tidal CO2 (etCO2) target range. We compared sidestream versus mainstream capnography with this ventilation mode with respect to the quality of breathing in patients after cardiac surgery.MethodsSingle-center, single-blinded, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial in adult patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery that were expected to receive at least two hours of postoperative ventilation in the ICU. Patients were randomized 1:1 to closed-loop ventilation with sidestream or mainstream capnography. Each breath was classified into a zone based on the measured VT, maximum airway pressure, etCO2 and pulse oximetry. The primary outcome was the proportion of breaths spent in a predefined 'optimal' zone of ventilation during the first three hours of postoperative ventilation, with a non-inferiority margin for the difference in the proportions set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of breaths in predefined 'acceptable' and 'critical' zones of ventilation, and the proportion of breaths with hypoxemia.ResultsOf 80 randomized subjects, 78 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. We could not confirm the non-inferiority of closed-loop ventilation using sidestream with respect to the proportion of breaths in the 'optimal' zone (mean ratio 0.87 [0.77 to ∞]; P = 0.116 for non-inferiority). The proportion of breaths with hypoxemia was higher in the sidestream capnography group versus the mainstream capnography group.ConclusionsWe could not confirm that INTELLiVENT-ASV using sidestream capnography is non-inferior to INTELLiVENT-ASV using mainstream capnography with respect to the quality of breathing in subjects receiving postoperative ventilation after cardiac surgery.Trial registrationNCT04599491 (clinicaltrials.gov)

Geo-economic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management and outcome of patients receiving intraoperative ventilation during general anesthesia- posthoc analysis of an observational study in 29 countries

Background: The aim of this analysis is to determine geo-economic variations in epidemiology, ventilator settings and outcome in patients receiving general anesthesia for surgery. Methods: Posthoc analysis of a worldwide study in 29 countries. Lower and upper middle-income countries (LMIC and UMIC), and high-income countries (HIC) were compared. The coprimary endpoint was the risk for and incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC); secondary endpoints were intraoperative ventilator settings, intraoperative complications, hospital stay and mortality. Results: Of 9864 patients, 4% originated from LMIC, 11% from UMIC and 85% from HIC. The ARISCAT score was 17.5 [15.0-26.0] in LMIC, 16.0 [3.0-27.0] in UMIC and 15.0 [3.0-26.0] in HIC (P=.003). The incidence of PPC was 9.0% in LMIC, 3.2% in UMIC and 2.5% in HIC (P &lt;.001). Median tidal volume in ml kg(-1) predicted bodyweight (PBW) was 8.6 [7.7-9.7] in LMIC, 8.4 [7.6-9.5] in UMIC and 8.1 [7.2-9.1] in HIC (P&lt;.001). Median positive end-expiratory pressure in cmH(2)O was 3.3 [2.0-5.0]) in LMIC, 4.0 [3.0-5.0] in UMIC and 5.0 [3.0-5.0] in HIC (P&lt;.001). Median driving pressure in cmH(2)O was 14.0 [11.5-18.0] in LMIC, 13.5 [11.0-16.0] in UMIC and 12.0 [10.0-15.0] in HIC (P&lt;.001). Median fraction of inspired oxygen in % was 75 [50-80] in LMIC, 50 [50-63] in UMIC and 53 [45-70] in HIC (P&lt;.001). lntraoperative complications occurred in 25.9% in LMIC, in 18.7% in UMIC and in 37.1% in HIC (P&lt;.001). Hospital mortality was 0.0% in LMIC, 1.3% in UMIC and 0.6% in HIC (P= .009). Conclusion: The risk for and incidence of PPC is higher in LMIC than in UMIC and HIC. Ventilation management could be improved in LMIC and UMIC