The Potential Dangers of Recruitment Maneuvers During One Lung Ventilation Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Existing evidence regarding lung-protective ventilation (LPV) during one-lung ventilation (OLV) focuses on surrogate outcomes. Our objective was to assess whether an LPV protocol during OLV surgery is associated with reduced respiratory complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a matched control retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing pulmonary resection at a tertiary Canadian hospital. The experimental group (n = 50) was derived from primary data of two crossover RCTs, which utilized protocolized LPV strategies with varying levels of positive end-expiratory pressure and recruitment maneuvers. The control group was drawn from a prospectively maintained database; these patients received conventional nonprotocolized ventilation (2000-2010). Each experimental group patient was matched 1:1 with a control group patient with respect to clinically relevant variables (age, sex, diagnosis, smoking status, cardiovascular disease status, comorbidity, BMI, preoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 s, surgery type). Major respiratory complications were defined as composite of acute respiratory distress syndrome, need for new positive-pressure ventilation, and atelectasis requiring bronchoscopy. Paired and unpaired statistical tests were used. RESULTS: Patients appeared well matched. Major respiratory complications occurred in 8% (n = 4) and 2% (n = 1) of patients in experimental and control groups, respectively (P = 0.50). There was a trend toward increased mortality (4 versus 0, P = 0.06) with protocolized LPV. The patients who died had respiratory complications; one had acute respiratory distress syndrome and two had profound hypoxemia. CONCLUSIONS: There was a nonsignificant trend toward increased mortality with LPV during OLV. Although limited by a small sample size, our findings identify a potential danger to excessive recruitment maneuvers. Larger studies, with clinically important outcomes are needed to better define the risk/benefit trade-offs for LPV during OLV.

A randomized feasibility trial of clonidine to reduce perioperative cardiac risk in patients on chronic beta-blockade: the EPIC study.

PURPOSE: Clonidine may help prevent cardiac complications in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery and receiving chronic beta-blocker therapy. We conducted a multicentre pilot randomized trial to estimate recruitment rates for a full-scale trial and to assess the safety and tolerability of combining clonidine with chronic beta-blockade. METHODS: Patients who were at elevated perioperative cardiac risk, receiving chronic beta-blockade, and scheduled for major non-cardiac surgery were recruited in a blinded (participants, clinicians, outcome assessors) placebo-controlled randomized trial at three Canadian hospitals. Participants were randomized to clonidine (0.2 mg oral tablet one hour before surgery, plus 0.2 mg·day(-1) transdermal patch placed one hour before surgery and removed four days after surgery or hospital discharge, whichever came first) or matching placebo. Feasibility was evaluated based on recruitment rates, with each centre being required to recruit 50 participants within 12-18 months. Additionally, we reviewed study drug withdrawals and safety outcomes, including clinically significant hypotension or bradycardia. RESULTS: Eighty-two of the 168 participants were randomized to receive clonidine and 86 to receive placebo. The average time to recruit 50 participants at each centre was 14.3 months. Six patients (7%) withdrew from clonidine, while four (5%) withdrew from placebo. Based on qualitative review, there were no major safety concerns related to clonidine. There was a moderate overall rate of cardiac morbidity, with 18 participants (11%) suffering postoperative myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION: This pilot randomized trial confirmed the feasibility, safety, and tolerability of a full-scale trial of oral and transdermal clonidine for reducing the risk of cardiac complications during non-cardiac surgery. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00335582.

Use of lung-protective strategies during one-lung ventilation surgery: a multi-institutional survey.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence suggests that intraoperative lung-protective ventilation (LPV) during one-lung ventilation (OLV) may reduce respiratory complications after thoracic surgery. Little is known about LPV practices during OLV. Our purpose was to assess the state of practice/perspectives of anesthesiologists regarding LPV during elective OLV. METHODS: We conducted a multi-institutional cross-sectional survey of anesthesiologists performing OLV at high-volume Canadian tertiary/university centers. The survey was designed, refined and distributed by a multi-disciplinary team using the Dillman method. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used. RESULTS: Seventy-five (63%) of 120 eligible respondents completed the survey. Although the critical care literature focuses on minimizing tidal volume (TV) as the central strategy of LPV, most respondents (89%, n=50/56) focused on minimizing peak airway pressure (PAP) as their primary strategy of intraoperative LPV. Only 64% (n=37/58) reported actively trying to minimize TV. While 32% (n=17/54) were unsure about the current evidence regarding LPV, 67% (n=36/54) believed that the evidence favoured their use during OLV. Perceived clinical and institutional barriers were the only predictors of reduced attempts to minimize TV on univariate analyses. In multivariable/adjusted analyses, perceived institutional barriers were the only predictors of reduced attempts to minimize TV with adjusted odds ratio of 0.1 (95% CI: 0.03-0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Most anesthesiologists defined low PAP as the primary strategy of LPV during OLV and attempted to minimize it. This study is the first to assess the practice/perspectives of anesthesiologists regarding LPV during OLV and also the first to explore predictors of LPV use. Randomized trials are currently ongoing. However, this study suggests that institutional barriers may subvert future knowledge translation and need to be addressed.

How strong is the evidence for the use of perioperative beta blockers in non-cardiac surgery? Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of perioperative beta blocker treatment in patients having non-cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Seven search strategies, including searching two bibliographic databases and hand searching seven medical journals. STUDY SELECTION AND OUTCOMES: We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated beta blocker treatment in patients having non-cardiac surgery. Perioperative outcomes within 30 days of surgery included total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal cardiac arrest, non-fatal stroke, congestive heart failure, hypotension needing treatment, bradycardia needing treatment, and bronchospasm. RESULTS: Twenty two trials that randomised a total of 2437 patients met the eligibility criteria. Perioperative beta blockers did not show any statistically significant beneficial effects on any of the individual outcomes and the only nominally statistically significant beneficial relative risk was 0.44 (95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.97, 99% confidence interval 0.16 to 1.24) for the composite outcome of cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal cardiac arrest. Methods adapted from formal interim monitoring boundaries applied to cumulative meta-analysis showed that the evidence failed, by a considerable degree, to meet standards for forgoing additional studies. The individual safety outcomes in patients treated with perioperative beta blockers showed a relative risk for bradycardia needing treatment of 2.27 (95% CI 1.53 to 3.36, 99% CI 1.36 to 3.80) and a nominally statistically significant relative risk for hypotension needing treatment of 1.27 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.56, 99% CI 0.97 to 1.66). CONCLUSION: The evidence that perioperative beta blockers reduce major cardiovascular events is encouraging but too unreliable to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.