Variable versus conventional lung protective mechanical ventilation during open abdominal surgery (PROVAR): a randomised controlled trial
P M Spieth, A Güldner, C Uhlig, T Bluth, T Kiss, C Conrad, K Bischlager, A Braune, R Huhle, A Insorsi, F Tarantino, L Ball, M J Schultz, N Abolmaali, T Koch, P Pelosi, M Gama de Abreu, PROtective Ventilation (PROVE) Network, P M Spieth, A Güldner, C Uhlig, T Bluth, T Kiss, C Conrad, K Bischlager, A Braune, R Huhle, A Insorsi, F Tarantino, L Ball, M J Schultz, N Abolmaali, T Koch, P Pelosi, M Gama de Abreu, PROtective Ventilation (PROVE) Network
Abstract
Background: Experimental studies showed that controlled variable ventilation (CVV) yielded better pulmonary function compared to non-variable ventilation (CNV) in injured lungs. We hypothesized that CVV improves intraoperative and postoperative respiratory function in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery.
Methods: Fifty patients planned for open abdominal surgery lasting >3 h were randomly assigned to receive either CVV or CNV. Mean tidal volumes and PEEP were set at 8 ml kg-1 (predicted body weight) and 5 cm H2O, respectively. In CVV, tidal volumes varied randomly, following a normal distribution, on a breath-by-breath basis. The primary endpoint was the forced vital capacity (FVC) on postoperative Day 1. Secondary endpoints were oxygenation, non-aerated lung volume, distribution of ventilation, and pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications until postoperative Day 5.
Results: FVC did not differ significantly between CVV and CNV on postoperative Day 1, 61.5 (standard deviation 22.1) % vs 61.9 (23.6) %, respectively; mean [95% confidence interval (CI)] difference, -0.4 (-13.2-14.0), P=0.95. Intraoperatively, CVV did not result in improved respiratory function, haemodynamics, or redistribution of ventilation compared to CNV. Postoperatively, FVC, forced expiratory volume at the first second (FEV1), and FEV1/FVC deteriorated, while atelectasis volume and plasma levels of interleukin-6 and interleukin-8 increased, but values did not differ between groups. The incidence of postoperative pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications was comparable in CVV and CNV.
Conclusions: In patients undergoing open abdominal surgery, CVV did not improve intraoperative and postoperative respiratory function compared with CNV.
Clinical trial registration: NCT 01683578.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01683578.
Keywords: Abdominal surgery; General anaesthesia; Lung protective ventilation; Mechanical ventilation; Variable ventilation.
Copyright © 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Source: PubMed