手术全身麻醉期间高 PEEP 与低 PEEP 的对比 - 三项随机临床试验的贝叶斯患者个体数据荟萃分析。

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2024-07-22 DOI:10.1097/ALN.0000000000005170
Guido Mazzinari, Fernando G Zampieri, Lorenzo Ball, Niklas S Campos, Thomas Bluth, Sabrine Nt Hemmes, Carlos Ferrando, Julian Librero, Marina Soro, Paolo Pelosi, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Marcus J Schultz, Ary Serpa Neto
{"title":"手术全身麻醉期间高 PEEP 与低 PEEP 的对比 - 三项随机临床试验的贝叶斯患者个体数据荟萃分析。","authors":"Guido Mazzinari, Fernando G Zampieri, Lorenzo Ball, Niklas S Campos, Thomas Bluth, Sabrine Nt Hemmes, Carlos Ferrando, Julian Librero, Marina Soro, Paolo Pelosi, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Marcus J Schultz, Ary Serpa Neto","doi":"10.1097/ALN.0000000000005170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The influence of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with recruitment maneuvers on the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications after surgery is still not definitively established. Bayesian analysis can help to gain further insights from the available data and provide a probabilistic framework that is easier to interpret. Our objective was to estimate the posterior probability that the use of high PEEP with recruitment maneuvers is associated with reduced postoperative pulmonary complications in patients with intermediate-to-high risk under neutral, pessimistic, and optimistic expectations regarding the treatment effect.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multilevel Bayesian logistic regression analysis on individual patient data from three randomized clinical trials carried out on surgical patients at Intermediate-to-High Risk for postoperative pulmonary complications. The main outcome was the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications in the early postoperative period. We studied the effect of high PEEP with recruitment maneuvers versus Low PEEP Ventilation. Priors were chosen to reflect neutral, pessimistic, and optimistic expectations of the treatment effect.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using a neutral, pessimistic, or optimistic prior, the posterior mean odds ratio (OR) for High PEEP with recruitment maneuvers compared to Low PEEP was 0.85 (95% Credible Interval [CrI] 0.71 to 1.02), 0.87 (0.72 to 1.04), and 0.86 (0.71 to 1.02), respectively. Regardless of prior beliefs, the posterior probability of experiencing a beneficial effect exceeded 90%. Subgroup analysis indicated a more pronounced effect in patients who underwent laparoscopy (OR: 0.67 [0.50 to 0.87]) and those at high risk for PPCs (OR: 0.80 [0.53 to 1.13]). Sensitivity analysis, considering severe postoperative pulmonary complications only or applying a different heterogeneity prior, yielded consistent results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>High PEEP with recruitment maneuvers demonstrated a moderate reduction in the probability of PPC occurrence, with a high posterior probability of benefit observed consistently across various prior beliefs, particularly among patients who underwent laparoscopy.</p>","PeriodicalId":7970,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"High PEEP with recruitment maneuvers versus Low PEEP During General Anesthesia for Surgery - a Bayesian individual patient data meta-analysis of three randomized clinical trials.\",\"authors\":\"Guido Mazzinari, Fernando G Zampieri, Lorenzo Ball, Niklas S Campos, Thomas Bluth, Sabrine Nt Hemmes, Carlos Ferrando, Julian Librero, Marina Soro, Paolo Pelosi, Marcelo Gama de Abreu, Marcus J Schultz, Ary Serpa Neto\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ALN.0000000000005170\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The influence of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with recruitment maneuvers on the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications after surgery is still not definitively established. Bayesian analysis can help to gain further insights from the available data and provide a probabilistic framework that is easier to interpret. Our objective was to estimate the posterior probability that the use of high PEEP with recruitment maneuvers is associated with reduced postoperative pulmonary complications in patients with intermediate-to-high risk under neutral, pessimistic, and optimistic expectations regarding the treatment effect.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multilevel Bayesian logistic regression analysis on individual patient data from three randomized clinical trials carried out on surgical patients at Intermediate-to-High Risk for postoperative pulmonary complications. The main outcome was the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications in the early postoperative period. We studied the effect of high PEEP with recruitment maneuvers versus Low PEEP Ventilation. Priors were chosen to reflect neutral, pessimistic, and optimistic expectations of the treatment effect.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using a neutral, pessimistic, or optimistic prior, the posterior mean odds ratio (OR) for High PEEP with recruitment maneuvers compared to Low PEEP was 0.85 (95% Credible Interval [CrI] 0.71 to 1.02), 0.87 (0.72 to 1.04), and 0.86 (0.71 to 1.02), respectively. Regardless of prior beliefs, the posterior probability of experiencing a beneficial effect exceeded 90%. Subgroup analysis indicated a more pronounced effect in patients who underwent laparoscopy (OR: 0.67 [0.50 to 0.87]) and those at high risk for PPCs (OR: 0.80 [0.53 to 1.13]). Sensitivity analysis, considering severe postoperative pulmonary complications only or applying a different heterogeneity prior, yielded consistent results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>High PEEP with recruitment maneuvers demonstrated a moderate reduction in the probability of PPC occurrence, with a high posterior probability of benefit observed consistently across various prior beliefs, particularly among patients who underwent laparoscopy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7970,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000005170\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000005170","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:高呼气末正压(PEEP)和吸入操作对术后肺部并发症发生的影响仍未确定。贝叶斯分析有助于从现有数据中获得更多信息,并提供一个更易于解释的概率框架。我们的目的是估计在中性、悲观和乐观的治疗效果预期下,在中高风险患者中使用高 PEEP 配合招募操作与减少术后肺部并发症相关的后验概率:对针对术后肺部并发症中高风险手术患者开展的三项随机临床试验中的患者个体数据进行多层次贝叶斯逻辑回归分析。主要结果是术后早期肺部并发症的发生率。我们研究了高 PEEP 与低 PEEP 通气的效果。选择的先验指标反映了对治疗效果的中性、悲观和乐观预期:使用中性、悲观或乐观先验时,与低 PEEP 相比,高 PEEP 加通气操作的后验平均几率比 (OR) 分别为 0.85(95% 可信区间 [CrI] 0.71 至 1.02)、0.87(0.72 至 1.04)和 0.86(0.71 至 1.02)。无论先验观点如何,出现有益效应的后验概率都超过了 90%。亚组分析表明,腹腔镜手术患者(OR:0.67 [0.50 至 0.87])和 PPCs 高危患者(OR:0.80 [0.53 至 1.13])的效果更明显。仅考虑术后严重肺部并发症或采用不同的异质性先验值进行敏感性分析,结果一致:结论:高 PEEP 配合招募操作可适度降低发生 PPC 的概率,在不同先验信念下均可观察到高获益后验概率,尤其是在接受腹腔镜手术的患者中。
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
High PEEP with recruitment maneuvers versus Low PEEP During General Anesthesia for Surgery - a Bayesian individual patient data meta-analysis of three randomized clinical trials.

Background: The influence of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with recruitment maneuvers on the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications after surgery is still not definitively established. Bayesian analysis can help to gain further insights from the available data and provide a probabilistic framework that is easier to interpret. Our objective was to estimate the posterior probability that the use of high PEEP with recruitment maneuvers is associated with reduced postoperative pulmonary complications in patients with intermediate-to-high risk under neutral, pessimistic, and optimistic expectations regarding the treatment effect.

Methods: Multilevel Bayesian logistic regression analysis on individual patient data from three randomized clinical trials carried out on surgical patients at Intermediate-to-High Risk for postoperative pulmonary complications. The main outcome was the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications in the early postoperative period. We studied the effect of high PEEP with recruitment maneuvers versus Low PEEP Ventilation. Priors were chosen to reflect neutral, pessimistic, and optimistic expectations of the treatment effect.

Results: Using a neutral, pessimistic, or optimistic prior, the posterior mean odds ratio (OR) for High PEEP with recruitment maneuvers compared to Low PEEP was 0.85 (95% Credible Interval [CrI] 0.71 to 1.02), 0.87 (0.72 to 1.04), and 0.86 (0.71 to 1.02), respectively. Regardless of prior beliefs, the posterior probability of experiencing a beneficial effect exceeded 90%. Subgroup analysis indicated a more pronounced effect in patients who underwent laparoscopy (OR: 0.67 [0.50 to 0.87]) and those at high risk for PPCs (OR: 0.80 [0.53 to 1.13]). Sensitivity analysis, considering severe postoperative pulmonary complications only or applying a different heterogeneity prior, yielded consistent results.

Conclusion: High PEEP with recruitment maneuvers demonstrated a moderate reduction in the probability of PPC occurrence, with a high posterior probability of benefit observed consistently across various prior beliefs, particularly among patients who underwent laparoscopy.

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
Anesthesiology
Anesthesiology 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
5.70%
发文量
542
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: With its establishment in 1940, Anesthesiology has emerged as a prominent leader in the field of anesthesiology, encompassing perioperative, critical care, and pain medicine. As the esteemed journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Anesthesiology operates independently with full editorial freedom. Its distinguished Editorial Board, comprising renowned professionals from across the globe, drives the advancement of the specialty by presenting innovative research through immediate open access to select articles and granting free access to all published articles after a six-month period. Furthermore, Anesthesiology actively promotes groundbreaking studies through an influential press release program. The journal's unwavering commitment lies in the dissemination of exemplary work that enhances clinical practice and revolutionizes the practice of medicine within our discipline.
期刊最新文献
Navigating Hemolysis and the Renal Implications of Hemoglobin Toxicity in Cardiac Surgery. Activation of α7 Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Inhibits Hepatic Necroptosis and Ameliorates Acute Liver Injury in Mice. Cardiovascular Effects of Increasing Positive End-expiratory Pressure in a Model of Left Ventricular Cardiogenic Shock in Female Pigs. Factor Eight Inhibitor Bypass Activity Use in Cardiac Surgery: A Propensity-matched Analysis of Safety Outcomes. Paravertebral versus Pectoralis-II (Interpectoral and Pectoserratus) Nerve Blocks for Postoperative Analgesia after Nonmastectomy Breast Surgery: A Randomized, Controlled, Observer-masked Noninferiority Trial.
×
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