Temporal trends and current practice patterns for intraoperative ventilation at U.S. academic medical centers: a retrospective study

Jonathan P Wanderer, Jesse M Ehrenfeld, Richard H Epstein, Daryl J Kor, Raquel R Bartz, Ana Fernandez-Bustamante, Marcos F Vidal Melo, James M Blum, Jonathan P Wanderer, Jesse M Ehrenfeld, Richard H Epstein, Daryl J Kor, Raquel R Bartz, Ana Fernandez-Bustamante, Marcos F Vidal Melo, James M Blum

Abstract

Background: Lung protective ventilation strategies utilizing lower tidal volumes per predicted body weight (PBW) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) have been suggested to be beneficial in a variety of surgical populations. Recent clinical studies have used control groups ventilated with high tidal volumes without PEEP based on the assumption that this reflects current clinical practice. We hypothesized that ventilation strategies have changed over time, that most anesthetics in U.S. academic medical centers are currently performed with lower tidal volumes, and that most receive PEEP.

Methods: Intraoperative data were pooled for adults undergoing general anesthesia with tracheal intubation. Median tidal volumes per kilogram of PBW were categorized as > 10, 8-10 and < 8 mL per kg of PBW. The percentages of cases in 2013 that were performed with median tidal volumes < 8 mL per kg of PBW and PEEP were determined. As a secondary analysis, a proportional odds model using institution, year, height, weight and gender determined the relative associations of these factors using categorical and interquartile odds ratios.

Results: 295,540 cases were analyzed from 5 institutions over a period of 10 years. In 2013, 59.3% of cases used median tidal volumes < 8 mL per kg of PBW, 83.3% used PEEP, and 51.0% used both. Of those cases with PEEP, 60.9% used a median pressure of ≥ 5 cmH2O. Predictors of lower categories of tidal volumes included height (odds ratio (OR) 10.83, 95% confidence interval [10.50, 11.16]), institution (lowest OR 0.98 [0.96, 1.00], highest OR 9.63 [9.41, 9.86]), year (lowest OR 1.32 [1.21, 1.44], highest OR 6.31 [5.84, 6.82]), male gender (OR 1.10 [1.07, 1.12]), and weight (OR 0.30 [0.29, 0.31]).

Conclusion: Most general anesthetics with tracheal intubation at the institutions surveyed are currently performed with a median tidal volume < 8 mL per kg of PBW, most are managed with PEEP of ≥ 5 cmH2O and approximately half utilize both. Given the diversity of the institutions included, this is likely reflective of practice in U.S. academic medical centers. The utilization of higher tidal volumes without PEEP in control groups for clinical research studies should be reconsidered.

Keywords: Intraoperative ventilation; Lung protective ventilation; Practice patterns.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart for cases included; A flow chart demonstrating the sequential exclusions applied to the initial set of cases, resulting in the cases included for analysis. ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Ventilation parameters set by the anesthesia provider; Ventilation parameters set by the anesthesia provider over time (2005–2013) at five U.S. academic medical centers. At top left, average of median exhaled tidal volume per kilogram of predicted body weight (PBW). At top right, percentage of cases utilizing positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP). At bottom left, average of median respiratory rate (RR). At bottom right, average of median fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2). Error bars indicate 25th and 75th percentile ranges.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Tidal volumes and PEEP; Median exhaled tidal volumes were grouped into categories of < 8 mL per kg of predicted body weight (PBW), 8–10 mL per kg of PBW and > 10 mL per kg of PBW. Median positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) values were grouped into categories of no PEEP, 1–4 cm H2O, 5–10 cm H2O and > 10 cm H2O. Counts of cases with tidal volumes and PEEP usage are displayed above for each year analyzed.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Physiologic parameters; Physiologic parameters resulting from ventilation strategies (2005–2013) at five U.S. academic medical centers. Average of median peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) at top, average of median blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) in middle, and average of median end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2) at bottom. Error bars indicate 25th and 75th percentile ranges.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Proportional odds model estimates; The proportional odds model estimates of the odds of receiving lower tidal volume ventilation for each variable compared to a reference value, with median exhaled tidal volume categorized as > 10 mL per kg of predicted body weight (PBW), 8–10 mL per kg of PBW, and < 8 mL per kg of PBW. The triangles mark the estimate centers, with 95% confidence intervals indicated with the bars extending from the centers. For the categorical variables of year, gender and center, the estimates provided are odds of receiving lower tidal volume ventilation relative to 2005, females and center A, respectively. For height and weight, the estimates provided are the interquartile odd ratio, indicating the odds of receiving lower tidal volume ventilation at the 75th percentile of those variables compared to the 25th percentile. The p-value for each estimate is p < 0.0001 based on a likelihood ratio test with 11 degrees of freedom.

References

    1. Schultz MJ, Haitsma JJ, Slutsky AS, Gajic O. What tidal volumes should be used in patients without acute lung injury? Anesthesiology. 2007;106(6):1226–31. doi: 10.1097/01.anes.0000267607.25011.e8.
    1. Yang M, Ahn HJ, Kim K, Kim JA, Yi CA, Kim MJ, et al. Does a protective ventilation strategy reduce the risk of pulmonary complications after lung cancer surgery? A randomized controlled trial. Chest. 2011;139(3):530–7. doi: 10.1378/chest.09-2293.
    1. Weingarten TN, Whalen FX, Warner DO, Gajic O, Schears GJ, Snyder MR, et al. Comparison of two ventilatory strategies in elderly patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2010;104(1):16–22. doi: 10.1093/bja/aep319.
    1. Sundar S, Novack V, Jervis K, Bender SP, Lerner A, Panzica P, et al. Influence of low tidal volume ventilation on time to extubation in cardiac surgical patients. Anesthesiology. 2011;114(5):1102–10. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318215e254.
    1. Costa EL, Musch G, Winkler T, Schroeder T, Harris RS, Jones HA, et al. Mild endotoxemia during mechanical ventilation produces spatially heterogeneous pulmonary neutrophilic inflammation in sheep. Anesthesiology. 2010;112(3):658–69. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181cbd1d4.
    1. Wellman TJ, Winkler T, Costa EL, Musch G, Harris RS, Zheng H, et al. Effect of local tidal lung strain on inflammation in normal and lipopolysaccharide-exposed sheep. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(7):e491–500. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000346.
    1. de Prost N, Costa EL, Wellman T, Musch G, Tucci MR, Winkler T, et al. Effects of ventilation strategy on distribution of lung inflammatory cell activity. Crit Care. 2013;17(4):R175. doi: 10.1186/cc12854.
    1. Serpa Neto A, Cardoso SO, Manetta JA, Pereira VG, Espósito DC, Pasqualucci Mde O, et al. Association between use of lung-protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes and clinical outcomes among patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2012;308(16):1651–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.13730.
    1. Carney D, DiRocco J, Nieman G. Dynamic alveolar mechanics and ventilator-induced lung injury. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(3):S122–8. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000155928.95341.BC.
    1. Wrigge H, Uhlig U, Zinserling J, Behrends-Callsen E, Ottersbach G, Fischer M, et al. The effects of different ventilatory settings on pulmonary and systemic inflammatory responses during major surgery. Anesth Analg. 2005;98(3):775–81.
    1. Kor DJ, Lingineni RK, Gajic O, Park PK, Blum JM, Hou PC, et al. Predicting risk of postoperative lung injury in high-risk surgical patients: a multicenter cohort study. Anesthesiology. 2014;120(5):1168–81. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000216.
    1. Goldenberg NM, Steinberg BE, Lee WL, Wijeysundera DN, Kavanagh BP. Lung-protect ventilation in the operating room: time to implement? Anesthesiology. 2014;121:184–8. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000274.
    1. Wanderer JP, Blum JM, Ehrenfeld JM. Intraoperative low-tidal-volume ventilation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(19):1861. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1311316.
    1. Hess DR, Kondili D, Burns E, Bittner EA, Schmidt UH. A 5-year observational study of lung-protective ventilation in the operating room: a single-center experience. J Crit Care. 2013;28(4)(533):e9–15.
    1. Futier E, Constantin JM, Paugam-Burtz C, Pascal J, Eurin M, Neuschwander A, et al. A trial of intraoperative low-tidal-volume ventilation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:428–37. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301082.
    1. The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1301–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200005043421801.
    1. Fernandez-Bustamante A, Wood CL, Tran ZV, Moine P. Intraoperative ventilation: incidence and risk factors for receiving large tidal volumes during general anesthesia. BMC Anesthesiol. 2011;11:22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2253-11-22.
    1. Fernandez-Bustamante A, Klawitter J, Repine JE, Agazio A, Janocha AJ, Shah C, et al. Early effect of tidal volume on lung injury biomarkers in surgical patients with healthy lungs. Anesthesiology. 2014;121(3):469–81. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000301.
    1. Canet J, Gallart L, Gomar C, Paluzie G, Vallès J, Castillo J, et al. Prediction of postoperative pulmonary complications in a population-based surgical cohort. Anesthesiology. 2010;113(6):1338–50. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181fc6e0a.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren