We have located open access text paper links.
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.
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology 2024 March 6
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 (EIT) 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 cm H2O. 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 ± 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.
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 cm H2O. 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 ± 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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease.Rheumatology 2024 April 17
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System: From History to Practice of a Secular Topic.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 5
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app