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.

Beyond "implementation": digital health innovation and service design.

Digital tools have shown great potential to enhance health services' capacity to achieve the goals of the triple aim (enhance patient experience, improve health outcomes, and control or reduce costs), but their actual impact remains variable. In this commentary, we suggest that shifting from a perspective focused on "implementing" new digital tools in health care settings toward one focused on "service design" will help teams execute more successful digital technology adoption projects. We present value proposition design (VPD) as a service design strategy requiring that stakeholders are brutally honest in determining the value of a new digital tool for their everyday work. Incorporating a perspective focused on how the value proposition of a technology is understood by each team member, and implications for their work routines, will help project teams to better understand how services can be reinvented during technology adoption initiatives. We present the simple heuristic [Tool+Team+Routine] as a reminder of the central considerations that make up a service design initiative, and present an illustrative case scenario of designing the use of a digital care coordination platform in an actual digital technology adoption project. We conclude by outlining two important challenges that need to be addressed to advance service design approaches to technology adoption in health care.