电阻抗断层扫描引导 PEEP 与传统 PEEP 通气后开放式腹部肿瘤手术肺通气损失的比较:一项试验性可行性研究。

IF 4.2 4区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Korean Journal of Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-05 DOI:10.4097/kja.23858
A R Karthik, Nishkarsh Gupta, Rakesh Garg, Sachidanand Jee Bharati, M D Ray, Vijay Hadda, Sourabh Pahuja, Seema Mishra, Sushma Bhatnagar, Vinod Kumar
{"title":"电阻抗断层扫描引导 PEEP 与传统 PEEP 通气后开放式腹部肿瘤手术肺通气损失的比较:一项试验性可行性研究。","authors":"A R Karthik, Nishkarsh Gupta, Rakesh Garg, Sachidanand Jee Bharati, M D Ray, Vijay Hadda, Sourabh Pahuja, Seema Mishra, Sushma Bhatnagar, Vinod Kumar","doi":"10.4097/kja.23858","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Existing literature lacks high-quality evidence regarding the ideal intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to minimize postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). We hypothesized that applying individualized PEEP derived from electrical impedance tomography would reduce the severity of postoperative lung aeration loss, deterioration in oxygenation, and PPC incidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A pilot feasibility study was conducted on 36 patients who underwent open abdominal oncologic surgery. The patients were randomized to receive individualized PEEP or conventional PEEP at 4 cmH2O. The primary outcome was the impact of individualized PEEP on changes in the modified lung ultrasound score (MLUS) derived from preoperative and postoperative lung ultrasonography. A higher MLUS indicated greater lung aeration loss. The secondary outcomes were the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and PPC incidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant increase in the postoperative MLUS (12.0 ± 3.6 vs 7.9 ± 2.1, P < 0.001) and a significant difference between the postoperative and preoperative MLUS values (7.0 ± 3.3 vs 3.0 ± 1.6, P < 0.001) were found in the conventional PEEP group, indicating increased lung aeration loss. In the conventional PEEP group, the intraoperative PaO2/FiO2 ratios were significantly lower but not the postoperative ratios. The PPC incidence was not significantly different between the groups. Post-hoc analysis showed the increase in lung aeration loss and deterioration of intraoperative oxygenation correlated with the deviation from the individualized PEEP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Individualized PEEP appears to protect against lung aeration loss and intraoperative oxygenation deterioration. The advantage was greater in patients whose individualized PEEP deviated more from the conventional PEEP.</p>","PeriodicalId":17855,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":"353-363"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11150122/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of lung aeration loss in open abdominal oncologic surgeries after ventilation with electrical impedance tomography-guided PEEP versus conventional PEEP: a pilot feasibility study.\",\"authors\":\"A R Karthik, Nishkarsh Gupta, Rakesh Garg, Sachidanand Jee Bharati, M D Ray, Vijay Hadda, Sourabh Pahuja, Seema Mishra, Sushma Bhatnagar, Vinod Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.4097/kja.23858\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Existing literature lacks high-quality evidence regarding the ideal intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to minimize postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). We hypothesized that applying individualized PEEP derived from electrical impedance tomography would reduce the severity of postoperative lung aeration loss, deterioration in oxygenation, and PPC incidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A pilot feasibility study was conducted on 36 patients who underwent open abdominal oncologic surgery. The patients were randomized to receive individualized PEEP or conventional PEEP at 4 cmH2O. The primary outcome was the impact of individualized PEEP on changes in the modified lung ultrasound score (MLUS) derived from preoperative and postoperative lung ultrasonography. A higher MLUS indicated greater lung aeration loss. The secondary outcomes were the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and PPC incidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant increase in the postoperative MLUS (12.0 ± 3.6 vs 7.9 ± 2.1, P < 0.001) and a significant difference between the postoperative and preoperative MLUS values (7.0 ± 3.3 vs 3.0 ± 1.6, P < 0.001) were found in the conventional PEEP group, indicating increased lung aeration loss. In the conventional PEEP group, the intraoperative PaO2/FiO2 ratios were significantly lower but not the postoperative ratios. The PPC incidence was not significantly different between the groups. Post-hoc analysis showed the increase in lung aeration loss and deterioration of intraoperative oxygenation correlated with the deviation from the individualized PEEP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Individualized PEEP appears to protect against lung aeration loss and intraoperative oxygenation deterioration. The advantage was greater in patients whose individualized PEEP deviated more from the conventional PEEP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17855,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"353-363\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11150122/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.23858\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.23858","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:现有文献缺乏有关理想术中呼气末正压(PEEP)的高质量证据,无法最大限度地减少术后肺部并发症(PPCs)。我们假设,应用由电阻抗断层扫描(EIT)得出的个体化 PEEP 可降低术后肺通气损失的严重程度、氧合作用的恶化以及 PPC 的发生率:对 36 名接受开放式腹部肿瘤手术的患者进行了一项试验性可行性研究。这些患者被随机分配接受个体化 PEEP 或 4 cm H2O 的常规 PEEP。主要结果是个体化 PEEP 对术前和术后肺部超声波检查得出的改良肺部超声波评分 (MLUS) 变化的影响。MLUS 越高表明肺通气损失越大。次要结果是 PaO2/FIO2 比值和 PPC 发生率:结果:常规 PEEP 组术后 MLUS 明显增加(12 ± 3.6 vs 7.9 ± 2.1,P < 0.001),术后与术前 MLUS 值差异明显(7.0 ± 3.3 vs 3.0 ± 1.6,P < 0.001),表明肺通气损失增加。在常规 PEEP 组,术中 PaO2/FIO2 比率显著降低,但术后比率没有显著降低。两组的 PPC 发生率无明显差异。事后分析表明,肺通气损失的增加和术中氧合情况的恶化与偏离个体化 PEEP 有关:结论:个体化 PEEP 似乎可以防止肺通气损失和术中氧合恶化。个体化 PEEP 与常规 PEEP 偏差较大的患者的优势更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of lung aeration loss in open abdominal oncologic surgeries after ventilation with electrical impedance tomography-guided PEEP versus conventional PEEP: a pilot feasibility study.

Background: Existing literature lacks high-quality evidence regarding the ideal intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to minimize postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). We hypothesized that applying individualized PEEP derived from electrical impedance tomography would reduce the severity of postoperative lung aeration loss, deterioration in oxygenation, and PPC incidence.

Methods: A pilot feasibility study was conducted on 36 patients who underwent open abdominal oncologic surgery. The patients were randomized to receive individualized PEEP or conventional PEEP at 4 cmH2O. The primary outcome was the impact of individualized PEEP on changes in the modified lung ultrasound score (MLUS) derived from preoperative and postoperative lung ultrasonography. A higher MLUS indicated greater lung aeration loss. The secondary outcomes were the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and PPC incidence.

Results: A significant increase in the postoperative MLUS (12.0 ± 3.6 vs 7.9 ± 2.1, P < 0.001) and a significant difference between the postoperative and preoperative MLUS values (7.0 ± 3.3 vs 3.0 ± 1.6, P < 0.001) were found in the conventional PEEP group, indicating increased lung aeration loss. In the conventional PEEP group, the intraoperative PaO2/FiO2 ratios were significantly lower but not the postoperative ratios. The PPC incidence was not significantly different between the groups. Post-hoc analysis showed the increase in lung aeration loss and deterioration of intraoperative oxygenation correlated with the deviation from the individualized PEEP.

Conclusions: Individualized PEEP appears to protect against lung aeration loss and intraoperative oxygenation deterioration. The advantage was greater in patients whose individualized PEEP deviated more from the conventional PEEP.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
6.90%
发文量
84
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Response to "Comment on effects of remimazolam versus dexmedetomidine on recovery after transcatheter aortic valve replacement under monitored anesthesia care: a propensity score-matched, non-inferiority study". Response to "Comment on 'Effects of remimazolam versus dexmedetomidine on recovery after transcatheter aortic valve replacement under monitored anesthesia care: a propensity score-matched, non-inferiority study'". Anesthesiologic relevance of Klinefelter syndrome - discussion based on a case report. Comment on "Effects of remimazolam versus dexmedetomidine on recovery after transcatheter aortic valve replacement under monitored anesthesia care: a propensity score-matched, non-inferiority study". Comment on: "Effects of remimazolam versus dexmedetomidine on recovery after transcatheter aortic valve replacement under monitored anesthesia care: a propensity score-matched, non-inferiority study".
×
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