| 1. |
- Carraminana, Albert, et al.
(författare)
-
Rationale and Study Design for an Individualized Perioperative Open Lung Ventilatory Strategy in Patients on One-Lung Ventilation (iPROVE-OLV)
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. - : W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC. - 1053-0770 .- 1532-8422. ; 33:9, s. 2492-2502
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this clinical trial is to examine whether it is possible to reduce postoperative complications using an individualized perioperative ventilatory strategy versus using a standard lung-protective ventilation strategy in patients scheduled for thoracic surgery requiring one-lung ventilation. Design: International, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial. Setting: A network of university hospitals. Participants: The study comprises 1,380 patients scheduled for thoracic surgery. Interventions: The individualized group will receive intraoperative recruitment maneuvers followed by individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (open lung approach) during the intraoperative period plus postoperative ventilatory support with high-flow nasal cannula, whereas the control group will be managed with conventional lung-protective ventilation. Measurements and Main Results: Individual and total number of postoperative complications, including atelectasis, pneumothorax, pleural effusion, pneumonia, acute lung injury; unplanned readmission and reintubation; length of stay and death in the critical care unit and in the hospital will be analyzed for both groups. The authors hypothesize that the intraoperative application of an open lung approach followed by an individual indication of high-flow nasal cannula in the postoperative period will reduce pulmonary complications and length of hospital stay in high-risk surgical patients. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ferrando, Carlos, et al.
(författare)
-
Rationale and study design for an individualized perioperative open lung ventilatory strategy (iPROVE) : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Trials. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1745-6215. ; 16
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Postoperative pulmonary and non-pulmonary complications are common problems that increase morbidity and mortality in surgical patients, even though the incidence has decreased with the increased use of protective lung ventilation strategies. Previous trials have focused on standard strategies in the intraoperative or postoperative period, but without personalizing these strategies to suit the needs of each individual patient and without considering both these periods as a global perioperative lung-protective approach. The trial presented here aims at comparing postoperative complications when using an individualized ventilatory management strategy in the intraoperative and immediate postoperative periods with those when using a standard protective ventilation strategy in patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery. Methods: This is a comparative, prospective, multicenter, randomized, and controlled, four-arm trial that will include 1012 patients with an intermediate or high risk for postoperative pulmonary complications. The patients will be divided into four groups: (1) individualized perioperative group: intra-and postoperative individualized strategy; (2) intraoperative individualized strategy + postoperative continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP); (3) intraoperative standard ventilation + postoperative CPAP; (4) intra-and postoperative standard strategy (conventional strategy). The primary outcome is a composite analysis of postoperative complications. Discussion: The Individualized Perioperative Open-lung Ventilatory Strategy (iPROVE) is the first multicenter, randomized, and controlled trial to investigate whether an individualized perioperative approach prevents postoperative pulmonary complications.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ferrando, Carlos, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of oxygen on post-surgical infections during an individualised perioperative open-lung ventilatory strategy : a randomised controlled trial
- 2020
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Anaesthesia. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 0007-0912 .- 1471-6771. ; 124:1, s. 110-120
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: We aimed to examine whether using a high fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) in the context of an individualised intra- and postoperative open-lung ventilation approach could decrease surgical site infection (SSI) in patients scheduled for abdominal surgery. Methods: We performed a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial in a network of 21 university hospitals from June 6, 2017 to July 19, 2018. Patients undergoing abdominal surgery were randomly assigned to receive a high (0.80) or conventional (0.3) FIO2 during the intraoperative period and during the first 3 postoperative hours. All patients were mechanically ventilated with an open-lung strategy, which included recruitment manoeuvres and individualised positive end-expiratory pressure for the best respiratory-system compliance, and individualised continuous postoperative airway pressure for adequate peripheral oxyhaemoglobin saturation. The primary outcome was the prevalence of SSI within the first 7 postoperative days. The secondary outcomes were composites of systemic complications, length of intensive care and hospital stay, and 6-month mortality. Results: We enrolled 740 subjects: 371 in the high FIO2 group and 369 in the low FIO2 group. Data from 717 subjects were available for final analysis. The rate of SSI during the first postoperative week did not differ between high (8.9%) and low (9.4%) FIO2 groups (relative risk [RR]: 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.50; P=0.90]). Secondary outcomes, such as atelectasis (7.7% vs 9.8%; RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.48-1.25; P=0.38) and myocardial ischaemia (0.6% [n=2] vs 0% [n=0]; P=0.47) did not differ between groups. Conclusions: An oxygenation strategy using high FIO2 compared with conventional FIO2 did not reduce postoperative SSIs in abdominal surgery. No differences in secondary outcomes or adverse events were found.
|
|
