Marcelo Gama de Abreu

Protective Mechanical Ventilation during General Anesthesia for Open Abdominal Surgery Improves Postoperative Pulmonary Function

Background:The impact of intraoperative ventilation on postoperative pulmonary complications is not defined. The authors aimed at determining the effectiveness of protective mechanical ventilation during open abdominal surgery on a modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score as primary outcome and postoperative pulmonary function. Methods:Prospective randomized, open-label, clinical trial performed in 56 patients scheduled to undergo elective open abdominal surgery lasting more than 2 h. Patients were assigned by envelopes to mechanical ventilation with tidal volume of 9 ml/kg ideal body weight and zero-positive end-expiratory pressure (standard ventilation strategy) or tidal volumes of 7 ml/kg ideal body weight, 10 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure, and recruitment maneuvers (protective ventilation strategy). Modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score, gas exchange, and pulmonary functional tests were measured preoperatively, as well as at days 1, 3, and 5 after surgery. Results:Patients ventilated protectively showed better pulmonary functional tests up to day 5, fewer alterations on chest x-ray up to day 3 and higher arterial oxygenation in air at days 1, 3, and 5 (mmHg; mean ± SD): 77.1 ± 13.0 versus 64.9 ± 11.3 (P = 0.0006), 80.5 ± 10.1 versus 69.7 ± 9.3 (P = 0.0002), and 82.1 ± 10.7 versus 78.5 ± 21.7 (P = 0.44) respectively. The modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score was lower in the protective ventilation strategy at days 1 and 3. The percentage of patients in hospital at day 28 after surgery was not different between groups (7 vs. 15% respectively, P = 0.42). Conclusion:A protective ventilation strategy during abdominal surgery lasting more than 2 h improved respiratory function and reduced the modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score without affecting length of hospital stay.

Variable Tidal Volumes Improve Lung Protective Ventilation Strategies in Experimental Lung Injury

RATIONALE Noisy ventilation with variable Vt may improve respiratory function in acute lung injury. OBJECTIVES To determine the impact of noisy ventilation on respiratory function and its biological effects on lung parenchyma compared with conventional protective mechanical ventilation strategies. METHODS In a porcine surfactant depletion model of lung injury, we randomly combined noisy ventilation with the ARDS Network protocol or the open lung approach (n = 9 per group). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Respiratory mechanics, gas exchange, and distribution of pulmonary blood flow were measured at intervals over a 6-hour period. Postmortem, lung tissue was analyzed to determine histological damage, mechanical stress, and inflammation. We found that, at comparable minute ventilation, noisy ventilation (1) improved arterial oxygenation and reduced mean inspiratory peak airway pressure and elastance of the respiratory system compared with the ARDS Network protocol and the open lung approach, (2) redistributed pulmonary blood flow to caudal zones compared with the ARDS Network protocol and to peripheral ones compared with the open lung approach, (3) reduced histological damage in comparison to both protective ventilation strategies, and (4) did not increase lung inflammation or mechanical stress. CONCLUSIONS Noisy ventilation with variable Vt and fixed respiratory frequency improves respiratory function and reduces histological damage compared with standard protective ventilation strategies.

Protective versus Conventional Ventilation for Surgery: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis.

Background:Recent studies show that intraoperative mechanical ventilation using low tidal volumes (VT) can prevent postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). The aim of this individual patient data meta-analysis is to evaluate the individual associations between VT size and positive end–expiratory pressure (PEEP) level and occurrence of PPC. Methods:Randomized controlled trials comparing protective ventilation (low VT with or without high levels of PEEP) and conventional ventilation (high VT with low PEEP) in patients undergoing general surgery. The primary outcome was development of PPC. Predefined prognostic factors were tested using multivariate logistic regression. Results:Fifteen randomized controlled trials were included (2,127 patients). There were 97 cases of PPC in 1,118 patients (8.7%) assigned to protective ventilation and 148 cases in 1,009 patients (14.7%) assigned to conventional ventilation (adjusted relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.88; P < 0.01). There were 85 cases of PPC in 957 patients (8.9%) assigned to ventilation with low VT and high PEEP levels and 63 cases in 525 patients (12%) assigned to ventilation with low VT and low PEEP levels (adjusted relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.37; P = 0.72). A dose–response relationship was found between the appearance of PPC and VT size (R2 = 0.39) but not between the appearance of PPC and PEEP level (R2 = 0.08). Conclusions:These data support the beneficial effects of ventilation with use of low VT in patients undergoing surgery. Further trials are necessary to define the role of intraoperative higher PEEP to prevent PPC during nonopen abdominal surgery.

One-lung Ventilation with High Tidal Volumes and Zero Positive End-expiratory Pressure Is Injurious in the Isolated Rabbit Lung Model

We tested the hypothesis that one-lung ventilation (OLV) with high tidal volumes (Vt) and zero positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) may lead to ventilator-induced lung injury. In an isolated, perfused rabbit lung model, Vt and PEEP were set to avoid lung collapse and overdistension in both lungs, resulting in a straight pressure-time (P-vs-t) curve during constant flow. Animals were randomized to (a) nonprotective OLV (left lung) (n = 6), with Vt values as high as before randomization and zero PEEP; (b) protective OLV (left lung) (n = 6), with 50% reduction of Vt and maintenance of PEEP as before randomization; and (c) control group (n = 6), with ventilation of two lungs as before randomization. The nonprotective OLV was associated with significantly smaller degrees of collapse and overdistension in the ventilated lung (P < 0.001). Peak inspiratory pressure values were higher in the nonprotective OLV group (P < 0.001) and increased progressively throughout the observation period (P < 0.01). The mean pulmonary artery pressure and lung weight gain values, as well as the concentration of thromboxane B2, were comparatively higher in the nonprotective OLV group (P < 0.05). A ventilatory strategy with Vt values as high as those used in the clinical setting and zero PEEP leads to ventilator-induced lung injury in this model of OLV, but this can be minimized with Vt and PEEP values set to avoid lung overdistension and collapse.

Noisy pressure support ventilation: A pilot study on a new assisted ventilation mode in experimental lung injury*

Objective:To describe and evaluate the effects of the new noisy pressure support ventilation (noisy PSV) on lung physiologic variables. Design:Crossover design with four modes of mechanical ventilation. Setting:Experimental research facility of a university hospital. Subjects:A total of 12 pigs weighing 25.0–36.5 kg. Interventions:Animals were anesthetized, the trachea was intubated, and lungs were ventilated with a mechanical ventilator (volume-controlled mode). Acute lung injury was then induced by surfactant depletion. Biphasic intermittent airway pressure/airway pressure release ventilation (BIPAP/APRV) was initiated, and anesthesia depth was decreased to allow spontaneous breathing. After that, each animal was ventilated with four different modes of assisted mechanical ventilation (1 hr each, Latin squares sequence): 1) PSV, 2) PSV combined with intermittent sighs (PSV + Sighs), 3) BIPAP/APRV + spontaneous breathing, and 4) noisy PSV with random variation of pressure support (normal distribution). The mean level of pressure support was set identical in all PSV forms. Measurements and Main Results:We found that noisy PSV increased tidal volume variability compared with PSV and PSV + Sighs (19% vs. 5% and 7%, respectively, p < .05) independently from the inspiratory effort; improved oxygenation and reduced venous admixture but did not affect the amount of nonaerated lung tissue as compared with other assisted ventilation modes; reduced mean airway pressure at comparable minute ventilation; redistributed pulmonary blood flow toward nondependent lung regions similar to other PSV forms, whereas BIPAP/APRV + spontaneous breathing did not; and reduced the inspiratory effort and cardiac output in comparison with BIPAP/APRV + spontaneous breathing. Conclusions:In the surfactant depletion model of acute lung injury, the new noisy PSV increased the variability of the respiratory pattern and improved oxygenation by a redistribution of perfusion toward the ventilated nondependent lung regions with simultaneous lower mean airway pressure, comparable minute ventilation, and no increase in the inspiratory effort or cardiac output.

Intraoperative protective mechanical ventilation for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications: a comprehensive review of the role of tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure, and lung recruitment maneuvers.

Postoperative pulmonary complications are associated with increased morbidity, length of hospital stay, and mortality after major surgery. Intraoperative lung-protective mechanical ventilation has the potential to reduce the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications. This review discusses the relevant literature on definition and methods to predict the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complication, the pathophysiology of ventilator-induced lung injury with emphasis on the noninjured lung, and protective ventilation strategies, including the respective roles of tidal volumes, positive end-expiratory pressure, and recruitment maneuvers. The authors propose an algorithm for protective intraoperative mechanical ventilation based on evidence from recent randomized controlled trials.

Association between driving pressure and development of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for general anaesthesia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND Protective mechanical ventilation strategies using low tidal volume or high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) improve outcomes for patients who have had surgery. The role of the driving pressure, which is the difference between the plateau pressure and the level of positive end-expiratory pressure is not known. We investigated the association of tidal volume, the level of PEEP, and driving pressure during intraoperative ventilation with the development of postoperative pulmonary complications. METHODS We did a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials of protective ventilation during general anesthaesia for surgery published up to July 30, 2015. The main outcome was development of postoperative pulmonary complications (postoperative lung injury, pulmonary infection, or barotrauma). FINDINGS We included data from 17 randomised controlled trials, including 2250 patients. Multivariate analysis suggested that driving pressure was associated with the development of postoperative pulmonary complications (odds ratio [OR] for one unit increase of driving pressure 1·16, 95% CI 1·13-1·19; p<0·0001), whereas we detected no association for tidal volume (1·05, 0·98-1·13; p=0·179). PEEP did not have a large enough effect in univariate analysis to warrant inclusion in the multivariate analysis. In a mediator analysis, driving pressure was the only significant mediator of the effects of protective ventilation on development of pulmonary complications (p=0·027). In two studies that compared low with high PEEP during low tidal volume ventilation, an increase in the level of PEEP that resulted in an increase in driving pressure was associated with more postoperative pulmonary complications (OR 3·11, 95% CI 1·39-6·96; p=0·006). INTERPRETATION In patients having surgery, intraoperative high driving pressure and changes in the level of PEEP that result in an increase of driving pressure are associated with more postoperative pulmonary complications. However, a randomised controlled trial comparing ventilation based on driving pressure with usual care is needed to confirm these findings. FUNDING None.

Lung-Protective Ventilation With Low Tidal Volumes and the Occurrence of Pulmonary Complications in Patients Without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Analysis.

Objective:Protective mechanical ventilation with low tidal volumes is standard of care for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. The aim of this individual patient data analysis was to determine the association between tidal volume and the occurrence of pulmonary complications in ICU patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome and the association between occurrence of pulmonary complications and outcome in these patients. Design:Individual patient data analysis. Patients:ICU patients not fulfilling the consensus criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome at the onset of ventilation. Interventions:Mechanical ventilation with low tidal volume. Measurements and Main Results:The primary endpoint was development of a composite of acute respiratory distress syndrome and pneumonia during hospital stay. Based on the tertiles of tidal volume size in the first 2 days of ventilation, patients were assigned to a “low tidal volume group” (tidal volumes⩽ 7 mL/kg predicted body weight), an “intermediate tidal volume group” (> 7 and < 10 mL/kg predicted body weight), and a “high tidal volume group” (≥ 10 mL/kg predicted body weight). Seven investigations (2,184 patients) were included. Acute respiratory distress syndrome or pneumonia occurred in 23% of patients in the low tidal volume group, in 28% of patients in the intermediate tidal volume group, and in 31% of the patients in the high tidal volume group (adjusted odds ratio [low vs high tidal volume group], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52–0.98; p = 0.042). Occurrence of pulmonary complications was associated with a lower number of ICU-free and hospital-free days and alive at day 28 (10.0 ± 10.9 vs 13.8 ± 11.6 d; p < 0.01 and 6.1 ± 8.1 vs 8.9 ± 9.4 d; p < 0.01) and an increased hospital mortality (49.5% vs 35.6%; p < 0.01). Conclusions:Ventilation with low tidal volumes is associated with a lower risk of development of pulmonary complications in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Effects of Different Levels of Pressure Support Variability in Experimental Lung Injury

Background:Noisy pressure support ventilation has been reported to improve respiratory function compared to conventional assisted mechanical ventilation. We aimed at determining the optimal level of pressure support variability during noisy pressure support ventilation. Methods:Twelve pigs were anesthetized and mechanically ventilated. Acute lung injury was induced by surfactant depletion. At four levels of pressure support variability (coefficients of variation of pressure support equal to 7.5, 15, 30, and 45%, 30 min each, crossover design, special Latin squares sequence), we measured respiratory variables, gas exchange, hemodynamics, inspiratory effort, and comfort of breathing. The mean level of tidal volume was constant among variability levels. Results:Compared to conventional pressure support ventilation, different levels of variability in pressure support improved the elastance of the respiratory system, peak airway pressure, oxygenation, and intrapulmonary shunt. Oxygenation and venous admixture benefited more from intermediate (30%) levels of variability, whereas elastance and peak airway pressure improved linearly with increasing variability. Heart rate as well as mean arterial and pulmonary arterial pressures decreased slightly at intermediate to high (30–45%) levels of variability in pressure support. Inspiratory effort and comfort of breathing were not importantly influenced by increased variability in pressure support. Conclusion:In a surfactant depletion model of acute lung injury, variability of pressure support improves lung function. The variability level of 30% seems to represent a reasonable compromise to improve lung functional variables during noisy pressure support ventilation.

Pressure support improves oxygenation and lung protection compared to pressure-controlled ventilation and is further improved by random variation of pressure support.

Objectives:To explore whether 1) conventional pressure support ventilation improves lung function and attenuates the pulmonary inflammatory response compared to pressure-controlled ventilation and 2) random variation of pressure support levels (noisy pressure support ventilation) adds further beneficial effects to pressure support ventilation. Design:Three-arm, randomized, experimental study. Setting:University hospital research facility. Subjects:Twenty-four juvenile pigs. Interventions:Acute lung injury was induced by surfactant depletion. Animals were randomly assigned to 6 hrs of mechanical ventilation (n = 8 per group) with either 1) pressure-controlled ventilation, 2) pressure support ventilation, or 3) noisy pressure support ventilation. During noisy pressure support ventilation, the pressure support varied randomly, with values following a normal distribution. In all groups, the driving pressures were set to achieve a mean tidal volume of 6 mL/kg. At the end of experiments, animals were killed and lungs extracted for histologic and biochemical analysis. Measurements and Main Results:Respiratory, gas-exchange, and hemodynamics variables were assessed hourly. The diffuse alveolar damage and the inflammatory response of lungs were quantified. Pressure support ventilation and noisy pressure support ventilation improved gas exchange and were associated with reduced histologic damage and interleukin-6 concentrations in lung tissue compared to pressure-controlled ventilation. Noisy pressure support ventilation further improved gas exchange and decreased the inspiratory effort while reducing alveolar edema and inflammatory infiltration compared to pressure support ventilation. Conclusions:In this model of acute lung injury, pressure support ventilation and noisy pressure support ventilation attenuated pulmonary inflammatory response and improved gas exchange as compared to pressure-controlled ventilation. Noisy pressure support ventilation further improved gas exchange, reduced the inspiratory effort, and attenuated alveolar edema and inflammatory infiltration as compared to conventional pressure support ventilation.