5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during one-lung ventilation for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing thoracic surgery : A meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is an important part of the lung protection strategies for one-lung ventilation (OLV). However, a fixed PEEP value is not suitable for all patients. Our objective was to determine the prevention of individualized PEEP on postoperative complications in patients undergoing one-lung ventilation.

          Method:

          We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane and performed a meta-analysis to compare the effect of individual PEEP vs fixed PEEP during single lung ventilation on postoperative pulmonary complications. Our primary outcome was the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications during follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the partial pressure of arterial oxygen and oxygenation index during one-lung ventilation.

          Result:

          Eight studies examining 849 patients were included in this review. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications was reduced in the individualized PEEP group with a risk ratio of 0.52 (95% CI:0.37–0.73; P = .0001). The partial pressure of arterial oxygen during the OLV in the individualized PEEP group was higher with a mean difference 34.20 mm Hg (95% CI: 8.92–59.48; P = .0004). Similarly, the individualized PEEP group had a higher oxygenation index, MD: 49.07mmHg, (95% CI: 27.21–70.92; P < .0001).

          Conclusions:

          Individualized PEEP setting during one-lung ventilation in patients undergoing thoracic surgery was associated with fewer postoperative pulmonary complications and better perioperative oxygenation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

          The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Ventilator-induced lung injury.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Association between use of lung-protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes and clinical outcomes among patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis.

              Lung-protective mechanical ventilation with the use of lower tidal volumes has been found to improve outcomes of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It has been suggested that use of lower tidal volumes also benefits patients who do not have ARDS. To determine whether use of lower tidal volumes is associated with improved outcomes of patients receiving ventilation who do not have ARDS. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to August 2012. Eligible studies evaluated use of lower vs higher tidal volumes in patients without ARDS at onset of mechanical ventilation and reported lung injury development, overall mortality, pulmonary infection, atelectasis, and biochemical alterations. Three reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. Twenty articles (2822 participants) were included. Meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model showed a decrease in lung injury development (risk ratio [RR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.47; I2, 0%; number needed to treat [NNT], 11), and mortality (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; I2, 0%; NNT, 23) in patients receiving ventilation with lower tidal volumes. The results of lung injury development were similar when stratified by the type of study (randomized vs nonrandomized) and were significant only in randomized trials for pulmonary infection and only in nonrandomized trials for mortality. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model showed, in protective ventilation groups, a lower incidence of pulmonary infection (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.92; I2, 32%; NNT, 26), lower mean (SD) hospital length of stay (6.91 [2.36] vs 8.87 [2.93] days, respectively; standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.82; I2, 75%), higher mean (SD) PaCO2 levels (41.05 [3.79] vs 37.90 [4.19] mm Hg, respectively; SMD, -0.51; 95% CI, -0.70 to -0.32; I2, 54%), and lower mean (SD) pH values (7.37 [0.03] vs 7.40 [0.04], respectively; SMD, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.31 to 2.02; I2, 96%) but similar mean (SD) ratios of PaO2 to fraction of inspired oxygen (304.40 [65.7] vs 312.97 [68.13], respectively; SMD, 0.11; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.27; I2, 60%). Tidal volume gradients between the 2 groups did not influence significantly the final results. Among patients without ARDS, protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes was associated with better clinical outcomes. Some of the limitations of the meta-analysis were the mixed setting of mechanical ventilation (intensive care unit or operating room) and the duration of mechanical ventilation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                MEDI
                Medicine
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                0025-7974
                1536-5964
                16 July 2021
                16 July 2021
                : 100
                : 28
                : e26638
                Affiliations
                Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
                Author notes
                []Correspondence: Jiaqiang Zhang, Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China (e-mail: hnmzxh@ 123456163.com ).
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8818-7521
                Article
                MD-D-20-08484 26638
                10.1097/MD.0000000000026638
                8284741
                34260559
                b785bc7b-dd0b-41ed-9b76-cde79384f19c
                Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0

                History
                : 28 August 2020
                : 22 June 2021
                : 24 June 2021
                Categories
                3300
                Research Article
                Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                lung-protective ventilation strategy,one-lung ventilation,positive end-expiratory pressure

                Comments

                Comment on this article