Effect of Intraoperative Low Tidal Volume vs Conventional Tidal Volume on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Major Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Journal
JAMA
ISSN: 1538-3598
Titre abrégé: JAMA
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7501160
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2020
01 09 2020
Historique:
entrez:
2
9
2020
pubmed:
2
9
2020
medline:
17
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In patients who undergo mechanical ventilation during surgery, the ideal tidal volume is unclear. To determine whether low-tidal-volume ventilation compared with conventional ventilation during major surgery decreases postoperative pulmonary complications. Single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized clinical trial of 1236 patients older than 40 years undergoing major noncardiothoracic, nonintracranial surgery under general anesthesia lasting more than 2 hours in a tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia, from February 2015 to February 2019. The last date of follow-up was February 17, 2019. Patients were randomized to receive a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg predicted body weight (n = 614; low tidal volume group) or a tidal volume of 10 mL/kg predicted body weight (n = 592; conventional tidal volume group). All patients received positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) at 5 cm H2O. The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications within the first 7 postoperative days, including pneumonia, bronchospasm, atelectasis, pulmonary congestion, respiratory failure, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, or unplanned requirement for postoperative invasive or noninvasive ventilation. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pulmonary complications including development of pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory distress syndrome, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, acute kidney injury, wound infection (superficial and deep), rate of intraoperative need for vasopressor, incidence of unplanned intensive care unit admission, rate of need for rapid response team call, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Among 1236 patients who were randomized, 1206 (98.9%) completed the trial (mean age, 63.5 years; 494 [40.9%] women; 681 [56.4%] undergoing abdominal surgery). The primary outcome occurred in 231 of 608 patients (38%) in the low tidal volume group compared with 232 of 590 patients (39%) in the conventional tidal volume group (difference, -1.3% [95% CI, -6.8% to 4.2%]; risk ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.84-1.11]; P = .64). There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. Among adult patients undergoing major surgery, intraoperative ventilation with low tidal volume compared with conventional tidal volume, with PEEP applied equally between groups, did not significantly reduce pulmonary complications within the first 7 postoperative days. ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12614000790640.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32870298
pii: 2770010
doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12866
pmc: PMC7489812
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
848-858Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 7;369(19):1861
pubmed: 24195560
N Engl J Med. 2000 May 4;342(18):1301-8
pubmed: 10793162
Br J Anaesth. 2014 Jul;113(1):97-108
pubmed: 24623057
Br J Anaesth. 2017 Mar 1;118(3):317-334
pubmed: 28186222
JAMA. 2012 Oct 24;308(16):1651-9
pubmed: 23093163
Lancet. 2014 Aug 9;384(9942):495-503
pubmed: 24894577
Crit Care Resusc. 2019 Dec;21(4):243-50
pubmed: 31778630
N Engl J Med. 2013 Aug 1;369(5):428-37
pubmed: 23902482
JAMA. 2017 Oct 10;318(14):1335-1345
pubmed: 28973363
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005 Aug;130(2):378-83
pubmed: 16077402
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2018 Jan;46(1):79-87
pubmed: 29361260
Intensive Care Med. 2005 Oct;31(10):1379-87
pubmed: 16132888
Lancet. 2015 Aug 8;386(9993):569-624
pubmed: 25924834
JAMA Surg. 2017 Feb 1;152(2):157-166
pubmed: 27829093
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005 Dec;28(6):889-95
pubmed: 16271479
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Dec;123(6):898-913
pubmed: 31587835
JAMA. 2019 Jun 18;321(23):2292-2305
pubmed: 31157366
N Engl J Med. 1963 Nov 7;269:991-6
pubmed: 14059732
BMC Anesthesiol. 2014 Oct 01;14:85
pubmed: 25302048
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017 Aug;34(8):492-507
pubmed: 28633157