• Br J Anaesth · Jan 2023

    Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study

    Driving pressure-guided ventilation and postoperative pulmonary complications in thoracic surgery: a multicentre randomised clinical trial.

    • MiHye Park, Susie Yoon, Jae-Sik Nam, Hyun Joo Ahn, Heezoo Kim, Hye Jin Kim, Hoon Choi, Hong Kwan Kim, Randal S Blank, Sung-Cheol Yun, LeeDong KyuDKDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Dongguk University Hospital, Goyang-si, South Korea., Mikyung Yang, Jie Ae Kim, Insun Song, Bo Rim Kim, BahkJae-HyonJHDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, University of Seoul National College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea., Juyoun Kim, Sangho Lee, In-Cheol Choi, Young Jun Oh, Wonjung Hwang, Byung Gun Lim, and Burn Young Heo.
    • Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Centre, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
    • Br J Anaesth. 2023 Jan 1; 130 (1): e106e118e106-e118.

    BackgroundAirway driving pressure, easily measured as plateau pressure minus PEEP, is a surrogate for alveolar stress and strain. However, the effect of its targeted reduction remains unclear.MethodsIn this multicentre trial, patients undergoing lung resection surgery were randomised to either a driving pressure group (n=650) receiving an alveolar recruitment/individualised PEEP to deliver the lowest driving pressure or to a conventional protective ventilation group (n=650) with fixed PEEP of 5 cm H2O. The primary outcome was a composite of pulmonary complications within 7 days postoperatively.ResultsThe modified intention-to-treat analysis included 1170 patients (mean [standard deviation, sd]; age, 63 [10] yr; 47% female). The mean driving pressure was 7.1 cm H2O in the driving pressure group vs 9.2 cm H2O in the protective ventilation group (mean difference [95% confidence interval, CI]; -2.1 [-2.4 to -1.9] cm H2O; P<0.001). The incidence of pulmonary complications was not different between the two groups: driving pressure group (233/576, 40.5%) vs protective ventilation group (254/594, 42.8%) (risk difference -2.3%; 95% CI, -8.0% to 3.3%; P=0.42). Intraoperatively, lung compliance (mean [sd], 42.7 [12.4] vs 33.5 [11.1] ml cm H2O-1; P<0.001) and Pao2 (median [inter-quartile range], 21.5 [14.5 to 30.4] vs 19.5 [13.5 to 29.1] kPa; P=0.03) were higher and the need for rescue ventilation was less frequent (6.8% vs 10.8%; P=0.02) in the driving pressure group.ConclusionsIn lung resection surgery, a driving pressure-guided ventilation improved pulmonary mechanics intraoperatively, but did not reduce the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications compared with a conventional protective ventilation.Clinical Trial RegistrationNCT04260451.Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…