• J Clin Anesth · Oct 2023

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    The effect of driving pressure-guided versus conventional mechanical ventilation strategy on pulmonary complications following on-pump cardiac surgery: A randomized clinical trial.

    • Xue-Fei Li, Rong-Juan Jiang, Wen-Jie Mao, Hong Yu, Juan Xin, and Hai Yu.
    • Department of Anesthesiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
    • J Clin Anesth. 2023 Oct 1; 89: 111150111150.

    Study ObjectivePostoperative pulmonary complications occur frequently and are associated with worse postoperative outcomes in cardiac surgical patients. The advantage of driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy in decreasing pulmonary complications remains to be definitively established. We aimed to investigate the effect of intraoperative driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy compared with conventional lung-protective ventilation on pulmonary complications following on-pump cardiac surgery.DesignProspective, two-arm, randomized controlled trial.SettingThe West China university hospital in Sichuan, China.PatientsAdult patients who were scheduled for elective on-pump cardiac surgery were enrolled in the study.InterventionsPatients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery were randomized to receive driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy based on positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration or conventional lung-protective ventilation strategy with fixed 5 cmH2O of PEEP.MeasurementsThe primary outcome of pulmonary complications (including acute respiratory distress syndrome, atelectasis, pneumonia, pleural effusion, and pneumothorax) within the first 7 postoperative days were prospectively identified. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary complication severity, ICU length of stay, and in-hospital and 30-day mortality.Main ResultsBetween August 2020 and July 2021, we enrolled 694 eligible patients who were included in the final analysis. Postoperative pulmonary complications occurred in 140 (40.3%) patients in the driving pressure group and 142 (40.9%) in the conventional group (relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.18; P = 0.877). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference between study groups regarding the incidence of primary outcome. The driving pressure group had less atelectasis than the conventional group (11.5% vs 17.0%; relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.98; P = 0.039). Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups.ConclusionAmong patients who underwent on-pump cardiac surgery, the use of driving pressure-guided ventilation strategy did not reduce the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications when compared with conventional lung-protective ventilation strategy.Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.

      Pubmed     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…