A noninvasive postoperative clinical score to identify patients at risk for postoperative pulmonary complications: the Air-Test Score.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) negatively affect morbidity, healthcare costs and postsurgical survival. Preoperative and intraoperative peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation (SpO2) levels are independent risk factors for postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). The air-test assesses the value of SpO2 while breathing room-air. We aimed at building a clinical score that includes the air-test for predicting the risk for PPCs. METHODS: This is a development and validation study in patients -randomly divided into two cohorts- from a large randomized clinical trial (iPROVE) that enrolled 964 intermediate-to-high risk patients scheduled for abdominal surgery. Arterial oxygenation was assessed on room-air in the preoperative period (preoperative air-test) and 3h after admission to the postoperative care unit (postoperative air-test). The air-test was defined as positive or negative if SpO2 was ≤96% or >96%, respectively. Positive air-tests were stratified into weak (93-96%) or strong (<93%). The primary outcome was a composite of moderate-to-severe PPCs during the first seven postoperative days. RESULTS: A total of 902 patients were included in the final analysis (542 in the development cohort and 360 in the validation cohort). Regression analysis identified five independent risk factors for PPC: age, type of surgery, pre- and postoperative air-test, and atelectasis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75-0.82) when including these five independent predictors. We built a simplified score termed "air-test score" by using only the pre- and postoperative SpO2, resulting in an AUC of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.67-0.76) for the derivation and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.66-0.78) for the validation cohort, respectively. The air-test score stratified patients into four levels of risk, with PPCs ranging from <15% to >75%. CONCLUSIONS: The simple, non-invasive and inexpensive bedside air-test score, evaluating pre- and postoperatively SpO2 measured on room-air, helps to predict the risk for PPCs.

Individualised perioperative open-lung approach versus standard protective ventilation in abdominal surgery (iPROVE): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effects of individualised perioperative lung-protective ventilation (based on the open-lung approach [OLA]) on postoperative complications is unknown. We aimed to investigate the effects of intraoperative and postoperative ventilatory management in patients scheduled for abdominal surgery, compared with standard protective ventilation. METHODS: We did this prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial in 21 teaching hospitals in Spain. We enrolled patients who were aged 18 years or older, were scheduled to have abdominal surgery with an expected time of longer than 2 h, had intermediate-to-high-risk of developing postoperative pulmonary complications, and who had a body-mass index less than 35 kg/m2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) online to receive one of four lung-protective ventilation strategies using low tidal volume plus positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP): open-lung approach (OLA)-iCPAP (individualised intraoperative ventilation [individualised PEEP after a lung recruitment manoeuvre] plus individualised postoperative continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP]), OLA-CPAP (intraoperative individualised ventilation plus postoperative CPAP), STD-CPAP (standard intraoperative ventilation plus postoperative CPAP), or STD-O2 (standard intraoperative ventilation plus standard postoperative oxygen therapy). Patients were masked to treatment allocation. Investigators were not masked in the operating and postoperative rooms; after 24 h, data were given to a second investigator who was masked to allocations. The primary outcome was a composite of pulmonary and systemic complications during the first 7 postoperative days. We did the primary analysis using the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02158923. FINDINGS: Between Jan 2, 2015, and May 18, 2016, we enrolled 1012 eligible patients. Data were available for 967 patients, whom we included in the final analysis. Risk of pulmonary and systemic complications did not differ for patients in OLA-iCPAP (110 [46%] of 241, relative risk 0·89 [95% CI 0·74-1·07; p=0·25]), OLA-CPAP (111 [47%] of 238, 0·91 [0·76-1·09; p=0·35]), or STD-CPAP groups (118 [48%] of 244, 0·95 [0·80-1·14; p=0·65]) when compared with patients in the STD-O2 group (125 [51%] of 244). Intraoperatively, PEEP was increased in 69 (14%) of patients in the standard perioperative ventilation groups because of hypoxaemia, and no patients from either of the OLA groups required rescue manoeuvres. INTERPRETATION: In patients who have major abdominal surgery, the different perioperative open lung approaches tested in this study did not reduce the risk of postoperative complications when compared with standard lung-protective mechanical ventilation. FUNDING: Instituto de Salud Carlos III of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, and Grants Programme of the European Society of Anaesthesiology.

Rationale and study design for an individualised perioperative open-lung ventilatory strategy with a high versus conventional inspiratory oxygen fraction (iPROVE-O2) and its effects on surgical site infection: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a serious postoperative complication that increases morbidity and healthcare costs. SSIs tend to increase as the partial pressure of tissue oxygen decreases: previous trials have focused on trying to reduce them by comparing high versus conventional inspiratory oxygen fractions (FIO2) in the perioperative period but did not use a protocolised ventilatory strategy. The open-lung ventilatory approach restores functional lung volume and improves gas exchange, and therefore it may increase the partial pressure of tissue oxygen for a given FIO2. The trial presented here aims to compare the efficacy of high versus conventional FIO2 in reducing the overall incidence of SSIs in patients by implementing a protocolised and individualised global approach to perioperative open-lung ventilation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a comparative, prospective, multicentre, randomised and controlled two-arm trial that will include 756 patients scheduled for abdominal surgery. The patients will be randomised into two groups: (1) a high FIO2 group (80% oxygen; FIO2 of 0.80) and (2) a conventional FIO2 group (30% oxygen; FIO2 of 0.30). Each group will be assessed intra- and postoperatively. The primary outcome is the appearance of postoperative SSI complications. Secondary outcomes are the appearance of systemic and pulmonary complications. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The iPROVE-O2 trial has been approved by the Ethics Review Board at the reference centre (the Hospital Clínico Universitario in Valencia). Informed consent will be obtained from all patients before their participation. If the approach using high FIO2 during individualised open-lung ventilation decreases SSIs, use of this method will become standard practice for patients scheduled for future abdominal surgery. Publication of the results is anticipated in early 2019. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02776046; Pre-results.

Diagnostic value of distal colonic polyps for prediction of advanced proximal neoplasia in an average-risk population undergoing screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: For colorectal cancer screening, the predictive value of distal findings in the ascertainment of proximal lesions is not fully established. The aims of this study were to assess distal findings as predictors of advanced proximal neoplasia and to compare the predictive value of endoscopy alone vs. combined endoscopic and histopathologic data. METHODS: Primary colonoscopy screening was performed in 2210 consecutive, average-risk adults. Age, gender, endoscopic (size, number of polyps), and histopathologic distal findings were used as potential predictors of advanced proximal neoplasms (i.e., any adenoma > or =1 cm in size, and/or with villous histology, and/or with severe dysplasia or invasive cancer). Polyps were defined as distal if located in the descending colon, the sigmoid colon, or the rectum. Those in other locations were designated proximal. RESULTS: Neoplastic lesions, including 11 invasive cancers, were found in 617 (27.9%) patients. Advanced proximal neoplasms without any distal adenoma were present in 1.3% of patients. Of the advanced proximal lesions, 39% were not associated with any distal polyp. Older age, male gender, and distal adenoma were independent predictors of advanced proximal neoplasms. The predictive ability of a model with endoscopic data alone did not improve after inclusion of histopathologic data. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the predictive ability of models that use age, gender, and any combination of distal findings was relatively low. The proportion of advanced proximal neoplasms identified if any distal polyp was an indication for colonoscopy was only 62%. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy in which colonoscopy is performed solely in patients with distal colonic findings is not effective screening for the detection of advanced proximal neoplasms in an average-risk population.