To evaluate whether a perioperative open-lung ventilation strategy prevents postoperative pulmonary complications after elective on-pump cardiac surgery. Methods: In a pragmatic, randomized, multicenter, controlled trial, we assigned patients planned for on-pump cardiac surgery to either a conventional ventilation strategy with no ventilation during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and lower perioperative positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels (2 cm H 2 O) or an open-lung ventilation strategy that included maintaining ventilation during CPB along with perioperative recruitment maneuvers and higher PEEP levels (8 cm H 2 O). All study patients were ventilated with low-tidal volumes before and after CPB (6 to 8 ml/kg of predicted body weight). The primary end point was a composite of pulmonary complications occurring within the first 7 postoperative days. Results: Among 493 randomized patients, 488 completed the study (mean age, 65.7 years; 360 (73.7%) men; 230 (47.1%) underwent isolated valve surgery). Postoperative pulmonary complications occurred in 133 of 243 patients (54.7%) assigned to open-lung ventilation and in 145 of 245 patients (59.2%) assigned to conventional ventilation (p = 0.32). Open-lung ventilation did not significantly reduce the use of high-flow nasal oxygenotherapy (8.6% vs 9.4%; p = 0.77), non-invasive ventilation (13.2% vs 15.5%; p = 0.46) or new invasive mechanical ventilation (0.8% vs 2.4%, p = 0.28). Mean alive ICU-free days at postoperative day 7 was 4.4 ± 1.3 days in the open-lung group vs 4.3 ± 1.3 days in the conventional group (mean difference, 0.1 ± 0.1 day, p = 0.51). Extra-pulmonary complications and adverse events did not significantly differ between groups.
Background In the Protective Ventilation in Cardiac Surgery (PROVECS) randomized, controlled trial, an open-lung ventilation strategy did not improve postoperative respiratory outcomes after on-pump cardiac surgery. In this prespecified subanalysis, the authors aimed to assess the regional distribution of ventilation and plasma biomarkers of lung epithelial and endothelial injury produced by that strategy. Methods Perioperative open-lung ventilation consisted of recruitment maneuvers, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) = 8 cm H2O, and low-tidal volume ventilation including during cardiopulmonary bypass. Control ventilation strategy was a low-PEEP (2 cm H2O) low-tidal volume approach. Electrical impedance tomography was used serially throughout the perioperative period (n = 56) to compute the dorsal fraction of ventilation (defined as the ratio of dorsal tidal impedance variation to global tidal impedance variation). Lung injury was assessed serially using biomarkers of epithelial (soluble form of the receptor for advanced glycation end-products, sRAGE) and endothelial (angiopoietin-2) lung injury (n = 30). Results Eighty-six patients (age = 64 ± 12 yr; EuroSCORE II = 1.65 ± 1.57%) undergoing elective on-pump cardiac surgery were studied. Induction of general anesthesia was associated with ventral redistribution of tidal volumes and higher dorsal fraction of ventilation in the open-lung than the control strategy (0.38 ± 0.07 vs. 0.30 ± 0.10; P = 0.004). No effect of the open-lung strategy on the dorsal fraction of ventilation was noted at the end of surgery after median sternotomy closure (open-lung = 0.37 ± 0.09 vs. control = 0.34 ± 0.11; P = 0.743) or in extubated patients at postoperative day 2 (open-lung = 0.63 ± 0.18 vs. control = 0.59 ± 0.11; P > 0.999). Open-lung ventilation was associated with increased intraoperative plasma sRAGE (7,677 ± 3,097 pg/ml vs. 6,125 ± 1,400 pg/ml; P = 0.037) and had no effect on angiopoietin-2 (P > 0.999). Conclusions In cardiac surgery patients, open-lung ventilation provided larger dorsal lung ventilation early during surgery without a maintained benefit as compared with controls at the end of surgery and postoperative day 2 and was associated with higher intraoperative plasma concentration of sRAGE suggesting lung overdistension. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.