Search

Background Despite previous reports suggesting that pressure support ventilation facilitates weaning from mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, few studies have assessed its effects on recovery from anesthesia. The authors hypothesized that pressure support ventilation during emergence from anesthesia reduces postoperative atelectasis in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery using the Trendelenburg position. Methods In this randomized controlled double-blinded trial, adult patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy or robot-assisted prostatectomy were assigned to either the pressure support (n = 50) or the control group (n = 50). During emergence (from the end of surgery to extubation), pressure support ventilation was used in the pressure support group versus intermittent manual assistance in the control group. The primary outcome was the incidence of atelectasis diagnosed by lung ultrasonography at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). The secondary outcomes were Pao2 at PACU and oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry less than 92% during 48 h postoperatively. Results Ninety-seven patients were included in the analysis. The duration of emergence was 9 min and 8 min in the pressure support and control groups, respectively. The incidence of atelectasis at PACU was lower in the pressure support group compared to that in the control group (pressure support vs. control, 16 of 48 [33%] vs. 28 of 49 [57%]; risk ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.91; P = 0.024). In the PACU, Pao2 in the pressure support group was higher than that in the control group (92 ± 26 mmHg vs. 83 ± 13 mmHg; P = 0.034). The incidence of oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry less than 92% during 48 h postoperatively was not different between the groups (9 of 48 [19%] vs. 11 of 49 [22%]; P = 0.653). There were no adverse events related to the study protocol. Conclusions The incidence of postoperative atelectasis was lower in patients undergoing either laparoscopic colectomy or robot-assisted prostatectomy who received pressure support ventilation during emergence from general anesthesia compared to those receiving intermittent manual assistance. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Recently, several retrospective studies have suggested that pulmonary complication is related with driving pressure more than any other ventilatory parameter. Thus, the authors compared driving pressure–guided ventilation with conventional protective ventilation in thoracic surgery, where lung protection is of the utmost importance. The authors hypothesized that driving pressure–guided ventilation decreases postoperative pulmonary complications more than conventional protective ventilation. Methods In this double-blind, randomized, controlled study, 292 patients scheduled for elective thoracic surgery were included in the analysis. The protective ventilation group (n = 147) received conventional protective ventilation during one-lung ventilation: tidal volume 6 ml/kg of ideal body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 5 cm H2O, and recruitment maneuver. The driving pressure group (n = 145) received the same tidal volume and recruitment, but with individualized PEEP which produces the lowest driving pressure (plateau pressure–PEEP) during one-lung ventilation. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications based on the Melbourne Group Scale (at least 4) until postoperative day 3. Results Melbourne Group Scale of at least 4 occurred in 8 of 145 patients (5.5%) in the driving pressure group, as compared with 18 of 147 (12.2%) in the protective ventilation group (P = 0.047, odds ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.99). The number of patients who developed pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome was less in the driving pressure group than in the protective ventilation group (10/145 [6.9%] vs. 22/147 [15.0%], P = 0.028, odds ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.92). Conclusions Application of driving pressure–guided ventilation during one-lung ventilation was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications compared with conventional protective ventilation in thoracic surgery.