Efficacy and safety of single versus repeated stepwise cycling recruitment maneuver during one-lung ventilation in patients with normal pulmonary function undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic lung surgery: a randomized, controlled trial

E. A. Sherif, A. A. Rasha, Gamil Khaled
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of single versus repeated stepwise cycling recruitment maneuver during one-lung ventilation in patients with normal pulmonary function undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic lung surgery: a randomized, controlled trial","authors":"E. A. Sherif, A. A. Rasha, Gamil Khaled","doi":"10.4103/1687-7934.238456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background One-lung ventilation (OLV)-associated hypoxemia is a major concern and a challenge for the anesthesiologist. Lung recruitment maneuvers (RMs) are ventilator strategies in which the main goal is to restore the functional residual capacity and improve arterial oxygenation. Hemodynamic side effects are mainly associated with ‘fast’ RM not with ‘slow’ cycling RM and their effects are self-limited; therefore, they must be performed repetitively. Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single versus repeated stepwise cycling RMs during OLV in patients with normal lung function. Settings and design The study design is a randomized, double-blinded, controlled one. Patients and methods Sixty adult patients of ASA I–II who were scheduled for elective thoracoscopic lung surgery were randomized into groups C, single recruitment maneuver (SRM), and repeated recruitment maneuver (RRM) comprising 20 patients each. Group C patients received standard ventilation protocol: volume-controlled ventilation mode, VT 6 ml/kg, I : E ratio 1 : 2, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) 5 cmH2O, and respiratory rate 10–12 breaths/min. SRM patients received standard ventilation protocol with one alveolar RM 10 min after initiation of OLV with a PEEP of 10 cmH2O until end of surgery. RRM patients received standard ventilation protocol with first RM 10 min after initiation of OLV and then repeated every 30 min during OLV and a PEEP of 10 cmH2O until end of surgery. The following were assessed: hemodynamic parameters – heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, and central venous pressure; respiratory mechanical parameters – peak airway pressure (Paw-peak), plateau pressure (Paw-plat), and static lung compliance; and oxygenation parameters – partial arterial oxygen tension (PaO2), PaO2/FiO2, and oxygen saturation (SpO2). Results PaO2 and PaO2/FiO2 ratio increased in the SRM and RRM groups after RM from T2 (10 min after first RM) to T4 (45 min from first RM), with a significant difference compared with group C (P<0.05). Peak and plateau airway pressures declined in the SRM and RRM groups after RM from T2 to T4, with a significant difference when compared with group C (P<0.05). Static lung compliance increased in the SRM and RRM groups after RM, with a significant difference among the groups (P<0.05). Conclusion Single or repeated cycling RM was considered effective with high safety profile in patients with normal pulmonary function undergoing thoracoscopic lung surgery using OLV.","PeriodicalId":7492,"journal":{"name":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ain-Shams Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/1687-7934.238456","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background One-lung ventilation (OLV)-associated hypoxemia is a major concern and a challenge for the anesthesiologist. Lung recruitment maneuvers (RMs) are ventilator strategies in which the main goal is to restore the functional residual capacity and improve arterial oxygenation. Hemodynamic side effects are mainly associated with ‘fast’ RM not with ‘slow’ cycling RM and their effects are self-limited; therefore, they must be performed repetitively. Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of single versus repeated stepwise cycling RMs during OLV in patients with normal lung function. Settings and design The study design is a randomized, double-blinded, controlled one. Patients and methods Sixty adult patients of ASA I–II who were scheduled for elective thoracoscopic lung surgery were randomized into groups C, single recruitment maneuver (SRM), and repeated recruitment maneuver (RRM) comprising 20 patients each. Group C patients received standard ventilation protocol: volume-controlled ventilation mode, VT 6 ml/kg, I : E ratio 1 : 2, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) 5 cmH2O, and respiratory rate 10–12 breaths/min. SRM patients received standard ventilation protocol with one alveolar RM 10 min after initiation of OLV with a PEEP of 10 cmH2O until end of surgery. RRM patients received standard ventilation protocol with first RM 10 min after initiation of OLV and then repeated every 30 min during OLV and a PEEP of 10 cmH2O until end of surgery. The following were assessed: hemodynamic parameters – heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, and central venous pressure; respiratory mechanical parameters – peak airway pressure (Paw-peak), plateau pressure (Paw-plat), and static lung compliance; and oxygenation parameters – partial arterial oxygen tension (PaO2), PaO2/FiO2, and oxygen saturation (SpO2). Results PaO2 and PaO2/FiO2 ratio increased in the SRM and RRM groups after RM from T2 (10 min after first RM) to T4 (45 min from first RM), with a significant difference compared with group C (P<0.05). Peak and plateau airway pressures declined in the SRM and RRM groups after RM from T2 to T4, with a significant difference when compared with group C (P<0.05). Static lung compliance increased in the SRM and RRM groups after RM, with a significant difference among the groups (P<0.05). Conclusion Single or repeated cycling RM was considered effective with high safety profile in patients with normal pulmonary function undergoing thoracoscopic lung surgery using OLV.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在接受视频胸腔镜肺外科手术的正常肺功能患者单肺通气期间,单次与重复逐步循环招募操作的有效性和安全性:一项随机对照试验
背景:单肺通气(OLV)相关的低氧血症是麻醉师关注的主要问题和挑战。肺补充操作(RMs)是一种呼吸机策略,其主要目标是恢复功能性残余容量并改善动脉氧合。血流动力学副作用主要与“快”RM有关,而与“慢”RM无关,其影响是自限性的;因此,他们必须重复执行。目的:本研究的目的是评价肺功能正常患者OLV期间单次与重复逐步循环RMs的疗效和安全性。本研究设计为随机、双盲、对照研究。选择60例拟行择期胸腔镜肺手术的ASA I-II型成年患者,随机分为C组、单次招募手法组(SRM)和重复招募手法组(RRM),每组各20例。C组患者采用标准通气方案:量控通气模式,VT 6 ml/kg, I: E比1:2,呼气末正压(PEEP) 5 cmH2O,呼吸速率10 ~ 12次/min。SRM患者在OLV开始后10分钟接受一个肺泡RM的标准通气方案,PEEP为10 cmH2O,直到手术结束。RRM患者接受标准通气方案,在OLV开始后10分钟进行第一次通气,OLV期间每30分钟重复一次,PEEP为10 cmH2O,直到手术结束。评估如下:血流动力学参数——心率、平均动脉血压和中心静脉压;呼吸力学参数-气道峰值压力(Paw-peak)、平台压力(Paw-plat)和静态肺顺应性;和氧合参数-部分动脉氧张力(PaO2), PaO2/FiO2和氧饱和度(SpO2)。结果RM组和SRM组术后T2(第一次RM后10 min)至T4(第一次RM后45 min) PaO2和PaO2/FiO2比值均升高,与C组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。T2 ~ T4 RM后,SRM组和RRM组气道峰值、平台压均下降,与C组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。RM后,SRM组和RRM组肺静态顺应性升高,组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论单次或多次循环RM对于肺功能正常的胸腔镜肺手术患者使用OLV是有效且安全性高的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Management of early postoperative hypoxemia: a comparative performance of Hudson face mask with nasal prongs Aprepitant for attenuation of postoperative nausea and vomiting with a decrease in postoperative analgesic needs after laparoscopic surgery Awake orotracheal intubation using fiberoptic bronchoscope versus Airtraq laryngoscope in morbidly obese patients Tramadol versus hyoscine-N-butylbromide as intrapartum analgesics during the first stage of labor Effect of dexmedetomidine infusion on desflurane requirement and perioperative hemodynamic changes during laparoscopic gastric sleeve operations: a study based on entropy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1