Risk factors for PPCs in laparoscopic non-robotic vs. laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery (LapRas): rationale and protocol for a patient-level analysis of LAS VEGAS and AVATaR.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) vary amongst different surgical techniques. We aim to compare the incidence of PPCs after laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: LapRas (Risk Factors for PPCs in Laparoscopic Non-robotic vs Laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery) incorporates harmonized data from 2 observational studies on abdominal surgery patients and PPCs: 'Local ASsessment of VEntilatory management during General Anaesthesia for Surgery' (LAS VEGAS), and 'Assessment of Ventilation during general AnesThesia for Robotic surgery' (AVATaR). The primary endpoint is the occurrence of one or more PPCs in the first five postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include the occurrence of each individual PPC, hospital length of stay and in-hospital mortality. Logistic regression models will be used to identify risk factors for PPCs in laparoscopic non-robotic versus laparoscopic robotic abdominal surgery. We will investigate whether differences in the occurrence of PPCs between the two groups are driven by differences in duration of anesthesia and/or the intensity of mechanical ventilation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This analysis will address a clinically relevant research question comparing laparoscopic and robotic assisted surgery. No additional ethical committee approval is required for this metanalysis. Data will be shared with the scientific community by abstracts and original articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals. REGISTRATION: The registration of this post-hoc analysis is pending; individual studies that were merged into the used database were registered at clinicaltrials.gov: LAS VEGAS with identifier NCT01601223, AVATaR with identifier NCT02989415.

[Pre-clinical validation of a turbine-based ventilator for invasive ventilation-The ACUTE-19 ventilator]. / Validación preclínica de un respirador de turbina para la ventilación invasiva: el respirador ACUTE-19.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 pandemic pressure on healthcare systems can exhaust ventilator resources, especially where resources are restricted. Our objective was a rapid preclinical evaluation of a newly developed turbine-based ventilator, named the ACUTE-19, for invasive ventilation. Methods: Validation consisted of (a) testing tidal volume delivery in 11 simulated models, with various resistances and compliances; (b) comparison with a commercial ventilator (VIVO-50) adapting the United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency-recommendations for rapidly manufactured ventilators; and (c) in vivo testing in a sheep before and after inducing acute respiratory distress syndrome by saline lavage. Results: Differences in tidal volume in the simulated models were marginally different (largest difference 33 ml [95% CI 31 to 36]; P < .001). Plateau pressure was not different (-0.3 cmH2O [95% CI -0.9 to 0.3]; P = .409), and positive end-expiratory pressure was marginally different (0.3 cmH2O [95% CI 0.2 to 0.3]; P < .001) between the ACUTE-19 and the commercial ventilator. Bland-Altman analyses showed good agreement (mean bias -0.29 [limits of agreement 0.82 to -1.42], and mean bias 0.56 [limits of agreement 1.94 to -0.81], at a plateau pressure of 15 and 30 cmH2O, respectively). The ACUTE-19 achieved optimal oxygenation and ventilation before and after acute respiratory distress syndrome induction. Conclusions: The ACUTE-19 performed accurately in simulated and animal models yielding a comparable performance with a VIVO-50 commercial device. The ACUTE-19 can provide the basis for the development of a future affordable commercial ventilator.

Hyperoxemia in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients-Insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study.

OBJECTIVE: We determined the prevalences of hyperoxemia and excessive oxygen use, and the epidemiology, ventilation characteristics and outcomes associated with hyperoxemia in invasively ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a national, multicentre, observational study in 22 ICUs. Patients were classified in the first two days of invasive ventilation as 'hyperoxemic' or 'normoxemic'. The co-primary endpoints were prevalence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 90 mmHg) and prevalence of excessive oxygen use (FiO2 ≥ 60% while PaO2 > 90 mmHg or SpO2 > 92%). Secondary endpoints included ventilator settings and ventilation parameters, duration of ventilation, length of stay (LOS) in ICU and hospital, and mortality in ICU, hospital, and at day 28 and 90. We used propensity matching to control for observed confounding factors that may influence endpoints. RESULTS: Of 851 COVID-19 patients, 225 (26.4%) were classified as hyperoxemic. Excessive oxygen use occurred in 385 (45.2%) patients. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) severity was lowest in hyperoxemic patients. Hyperoxemic patients were ventilated with higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), while rescue therapies for hypoxemia were applied more often in normoxemic patients. Neither in the unmatched nor in the matched analysis were there differences between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients with regard to any of the clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients, hyperoxemia occurred often and so did excessive oxygen use. The main differences between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients were ARDS severity and use of PEEP. Clinical outcomes were not different between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients.

Pre-clinical validation of a turbine-based ventilator for invasive ventilation-The ACUTE-19 ventilator.

BACKGROUND: The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-Coronavirus 2 (CoV-2) pandemic pressure on healthcare systems can exhaust ventilator resources, especially where resources are restricted. Our objective was a rapid preclinical evaluation of a newly developed turbine-based ventilator, named the ACUTE-19, for invasive ventilation. METHODS: Validation consisted of (a) testing tidal volume (VT) delivery in 11 simulated models, with various resistances and compliances; (b) comparison with a commercial ventilator (VIVO-50) adapting the United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency-recommendations for rapidly manufactured ventilators; and (c) in vivo testing in a sheep before and after inducing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) by saline lavage. RESULTS: Differences in VT in the simulated models were marginally different (largest difference 33ml [95%-confidence interval (CI) 31-36]; P<.001ml). Plateau pressure (Pplat) was not different (-0.3cmH2O [95%-CI -0.9 to 0.3]; P=.409), and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was marginally different (0.3 cmH2O [95%-CI 0.2 to 0.3]; P<.001) between the ACUTE-19 and the commercial ventilator. Bland-Altman analyses showed good agreement (mean bias, -0.29, [limits of agreement, 0.82 to -1.42], and mean bias 0.56 [limits of agreement, 1.94 to -0.81], at a Pplat of 15 and 30cmH2O, respectively). The ACUTE-19 achieved optimal oxygenation and ventilation before and after ARDS induction. CONCLUSIONS: The ACUTE-19 performed accurately in simulated and animal models yielding a comparable performance with a VIVO-50 commercial device. The acute 19 can provide the basis for the development of a future affordable commercial ventilator.

Invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving extracorporeal support: a narrative review of strategies to mitigate lung injury.

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is indicated in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and severely impaired gas exchange despite evidence-based lung protective ventilation, prone positioning and other parts of the standard algorithm for treating such patients. Extracorporeal support can facilitate ultra-lung-protective ventilation, meaning even lower volumes and pressures than standard lung-protective ventilation, by directly removing carbon dioxide in patients needing injurious ventilator settings to maintain sufficient gas exchange. Injurious ventilation results in ventilator-induced lung injury, which is one of the main determinants of mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Marked reductions in the intensity of ventilation to the lowest tolerable levels under extracorporeal support may be achieved and could thereby potentially mitigate ventilator-induced lung injury and theoretically patient self-inflicted lung injury in spontaneously breathing patients with high respiratory drive. However, the benefits of this strategy may be counterbalanced by the use of continuous deep sedation and even neuromuscular blocking drugs, which may impair physical rehabilitation and impact long-term outcomes. There are currently a lack of large-scale prospective data to inform optimal invasive ventilation practices and how to best apply a holistic approach to patients receiving veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, while minimising ventilator-induced and patient self-inflicted lung injury. We aimed to review the literature relating to invasive ventilation strategies in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving extracorporeal support and discuss personalised ventilation approaches and the potential role of adjunctive therapies in facilitating lung protection.

ICONIC study-conservative versus conventional oxygenation targets in intensive care patients: study protocol for a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen therapy is a widely used intervention in acutely ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). It is established that not only hypoxia, but also prolonged hyperoxia is associated with poor patient-centered outcomes. Nevertheless, a fundamental knowledge gap remains regarding optimal oxygenation for critically ill patients. In this randomized clinical trial, we aim to compare ventilation that uses conservative oxygenation targets with ventilation that uses conventional oxygen targets with respect to mortality in ICU patients. METHODS: The "ConservatIve versus CONventional oxygenation targets in Intensive Care patients" trial (ICONIC) is an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, randomized clinical two-arm trial in ventilated adult ICU patients. The ICONIC trial will run in multiple ICUs in The Netherlands and Italy to enroll 1512 ventilated patients. ICU patients with an expected mechanical ventilation time of more than 24 h are randomized to a ventilation strategy that uses conservative (PaO2 55-80 mmHg (7.3-10.7 kPa)) or conventional (PaO2 110-150 mmHg (14.7-20 kPa)) oxygenation targets. The primary endpoint is 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints are ventilator-free days at day 28, ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 90-day mortality, ICU- and hospital length of stay, ischemic events, quality of life, and patient opinion of research and consent in the emergency setting. DISCUSSION: The ICONIC trial is expected to provide evidence on the effects of conservative versus conventional oxygenation targets in the ICU population. This study may guide targeted oxygen therapy in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trialregister.nl NTR7376 . Registered on 20 July, 2018.

Awake prone positioning in nonintubated spontaneous breathing ICU patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (PRONELIFE)-protocol for a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether awake prone positioning can prevent intubation for invasive ventilation in spontaneous breathing critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Awake prone positioning could benefit these patients for various reasons, including a reduction in direct harm to lung tissue, and prevention of tracheal intubation-related complications. DESIGN AND METHODS: The PRONELIFE study is an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, randomized clinical trial in patients who may need invasive ventilation because of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Consecutive patients admitted to participating ICUs are randomly assigned to standard care with awake prone positioning, versus standard care without awake prone positioning. The primary endpoint is a composite of tracheal intubation and all-cause mortality in the first 14 days after enrolment. Secondary endpoints include time to tracheal intubation and effects of awake prone positioning on oxygenation parameters, dyspnea sensation, and complications. Other endpoints are the number of days free from ventilation and alive at 28 days, total duration of use of noninvasive respiratory support, total duration of invasive ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, and mortality in ICU and hospital, and at 28, 60, and 90 days. We will also collect data regarding the tolerance of prone positioning. DISCUSSION: The PRONELIFE study is among the first randomized clinical trials investigating the effect of awake prone positioning on intubation rate in ICU patients with acute hypoxemic failure from any cause. The PRONELIFE study is sufficiently sized to determine the effect of awake prone positioning on intubation for invasive ventilation-patients are eligible in case of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure without restrictions regarding etiology. The PRONELIFE study is a pragmatic trial in which blinding is impossible-however, as around 35 ICUs worldwide will participate in this study, its findings will be highly generalizable. The findings of the PRONELIFE study have the potential to change clinical management of patients who may need invasive ventilation because of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN11536318 . Registered on 17 September 2021. The PRONELIFE study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov with reference number NCT04142736 (October, 2019).

Practice of tracheostomy in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19 - Insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study.

OBJECTIVE: Invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) potentially benefit from tracheostomy. The aim of this study was to determine the practice of tracheostomy during the first wave of the pandemic in 2020 in the Netherlands, to ascertain whether timing of tracheostomy had an association with outcome, and to identify factors that had an association with timing. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the 'PRactice of VENTilation in COVID-19' (PRoVENT-COVID) study, a multicenter observational study, conducted from March 1, 2020 through June 1, 2020 in 22 Dutch intensive care units (ICU) in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients receiving tracheostomy; secondary endpoints were timing of tracheostomy, duration of ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, mortality, and factors associated with timing. RESULTS: Of 1023 patients, 189 patients (18.5%) received a tracheostomy at median 21 [17 to 28] days from start of ventilation. Timing was similar before and after online publication of an amendment to the Dutch national guidelines on tracheostomy focusing on COVID-19 patients (21 [17-28] vs. 21 [17-26] days). Tracheostomy performed ≤ 21 days was independently associated with shorter duration of ventilation (median 26 [21 to 32] vs. 40 [34 to 47] days) and higher mortality in ICU (22.1% vs. 10.2%), hospital (26.1% vs. 11.9%) and at day 90 (27.6% vs. 14.6%). There were no patient demographics or ventilation characteristics that had an association with timing of tracheostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomy was performed late in COVID-19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic in the Netherlands and timing of tracheostomy possibly had an association with outcome. However, prospective studies are needed to further explore these associations. It remains unknown which factors influenced timing of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients.

Epidemiology, ventilation management and outcome in patients receiving intensive care after non-thoracic surgery - Insights from the LAS VEGAS study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Information about epidemiology, ventilation management and outcome in postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) patients remains scarce. The objective was to test whether postoperative ventilation differs from that in the operation room. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a substudy of the worldwide observational LAS VEGAS study, including patients undergoing non-thoracic surgeries. Of 146 study sites participating in the LAS VEGAS study, 117 (80%) sites reported on the postoperative ICU course, including ventilation and complications. The coprimary outcomes were two key elements of ventilator management, i.e., tidal volume (VT) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients receiving low VT ventilation (LTVV, defined as ventilation with a median VT < 8.0 ml/kg PBW), and the proportion of patients developing postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC), including ARDS, pneumothorax, pneumonia and need for escalation of ventilatory support, ICU and hospital length of stay, and mortality at day 28. RESULTS: Of 653 patients who were admitted to the ICU after surgery, 274 (42%) patients received invasive postoperative ventilation. Median postoperative VT was 8.4 [7.3-9.8] ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW), PEEP was 5 [5-5] cm H2O, statistically significant but not meaningfully different from median intraoperative VT (8.1 [7.3-8.9] ml/kg PBW; P < 0.001) and PEEP (4 [2-5] cm H2O; P < 0.001). The proportion of patients receiving LTVV after surgery was 41%. The PPC rate was 10%. Length of stay in ICU and hospital was independent of development of a PPC, but hospital mortality was higher in patients who developed a PPC (24 versus 4%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study of patients undergoing non-thoracic surgeries, postoperative ventilation was not meaningfully different from that in the operating room. Like in the operating room, there is room for improved use of LTVV. Development of PPC is associated with mortality.

How doctors actually (do not) involve families in decisions to continue or discontinue life-sustaining treatment in neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care doctors have to find the right balance between sharing crucial decisions with families of patients on the one hand and not overburdening them on the other hand. This requires a tailored approach instead of a model based approach. AIM: To explore how doctors involve families in the decision-making process regarding life-sustaining treatment on the neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care. DESIGN: Exploratory inductive thematic analysis of 101 audio-recorded conversations. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred four family members (61% female, 39% male) and 71 doctors (60% female, 40% male) of 36 patients (53% female, 47% male) from the neonatal, pediatric, and adult intensive care of a large university medical center participated. RESULTS: We identified eight relevant and distinct communicative behaviors. Doctors' sequential communicative behaviors either reflected consistent approaches-a shared approach or a physician-driven approach-or reflected vacillating between both approaches. Doctors more often displayed a physician-driven or a vacillating approach than a shared approach, especially in the adult intensive care. Doctors did not verify whether their chosen approach matched the families' decision-making preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Even though tailoring doctors' communication to families' preferences is advocated, it does not seem to be integrated into actual practice. To allow for true tailoring, doctors' awareness regarding the impact of their communicative behaviors is key. Educational initiatives should focus especially on improving doctors' skills in tactfully exploring families' decision-making preferences and in mutually sharing knowledge, values, and treatment preferences.

Effectiveness, safety and efficacy of INTELLiVENT-adaptive support ventilation, a closed-loop ventilation mode for use in ICU patients - a systematic review.

Introduction: INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation (INTELLiVENT-ASV), an advanced closed-loop ventilation mode for use in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, is equipped with algorithms that automatically adjust settings on the basis of physiologic signals and patient's activity. Here we describe its effectiveness, safety, and efficacy in various types of ICU patients.Areas covered: A systematic search conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and in Google Scholar identified 10 randomized clinical trials.Expert opinion: Studies suggest INTELLiVENT-ASV to be an effective automated mode with regard to the titrations of tidal volume, airway pressure, and oxygen. INTELLiVENT-ASV is as safe as conventional modes. However, thus far studies have not shown INTELLiVENT-ASV to be superior to conventional modes with regard to duration of ventilation and other patient-centered outcomes. Future studies are needed to test its efficacy.

Between-trial heterogeneity in ARDS research.

PURPOSE: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) revealed indeterminate or conflicting study results. We aimed to systematically evaluate between-trial heterogeneity in reporting standards and trial outcome. METHODS: A systematic review of RCTs published between 2000 and 2019 was performed including adult ARDS patients receiving lung-protective ventilation. A random-effects meta-regression model was applied to quantify heterogeneity (non-random variability) and to evaluate trial and patient characteristics as sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: In total, 67 RCTs were included. The 28-day control-group mortality rate ranged from 10 to 67% with large non-random heterogeneity (I2 = 88%, p < 0.0001). Reported baseline patient characteristics explained some of the outcome heterogeneity, but only six trials (9%) reported all four independently predictive variables (mean age, mean lung injury score, mean plateau pressure and mean arterial pH). The 28-day control group mortality adjusted for patient characteristics (i.e. the residual heterogeneity) ranged from 18 to 45%. Trials with significant benefit in the primary outcome reported a higher control group mortality than trials with an indeterminate outcome or harm (mean 28-day control group mortality: 44% vs. 28%; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among ARDS RCTs in the lung-protective ventilation era, there was large variability in the description of baseline characteristics and significant unexplainable heterogeneity in 28-day control group mortality. These findings signify problems with the generalizability of ARDS research and underline the urgent need for standardized reporting of trial and baseline characteristics.

Effect of an individualized versus standard pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy on postoperative recovery: a randomized clinical trial in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain whether individualization of pneumoperitoneum pressures during laparoscopic surgery improves postoperative recovery. This study compared an individualized pneumoperitoneum pressure (IPP) strategy with a standard pneumoperitoneum pressure (SPP) strategy with respect to postoperative recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: This was a multicentre RCT. The IPP strategy comprised modified patient positioning, deep neuromuscular blockade, and abdominal wall prestretching targeting the lowest intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) that maintained acceptable workspace. The SPP strategy comprised patient positioning according to the surgeon's preference, moderate neuromuscular blockade and a fixed IAP of 12 mmHg. The primary endpoint was physiological postoperative recovery, assessed by means of the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale. Secondary endpoints included recovery in other domains and overall recovery, the occurrence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, and plasma markers of inflammation up to postoperative day 3. RESULTS: Of 166 patients, 85 received an IPP strategy and 81 an SPP strategy. The IPP strategy was associated with a higher probability of physiological recovery (odds ratio (OR) 2·77, 95 per cent c.i. 1·19 to 6·40, P = 0·017; risk ratio (RR) 1·82, 1·79 to 1·87, P = 0·049). The IPP strategy was also associated with a higher probability of emotional (P = 0·013) and overall (P = 0·011) recovery. Intraoperative adverse events were less frequent with the IPP strategy (P < 0·001) and the plasma neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio was lower (P = 0·029). Other endpoints were not affected. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery, an IPP strategy was associated with faster recovery, fewer intraoperative complications and less inflammation than an SPP strategy. Registration number: NCT02773173 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

ANTECEDENTES: No se sabe con certeza si individualizar las presiones del neumoperitoneo durante la cirugía laparoscópica mejora la recuperación postoperatoria. Comparamos una estrategia con individualización de la presión del neumoperitoneo (individualised pneumoperitoneum pressure, IPP) frente a una estrategia con presión estándar del neumoperitoneo (standard pneumoperitoneum pressure, SPP) respecto a la recuperación postoperatoria tras cirugía colorrectal laparoscópica. MÉTODOS: Ensayo clínico aleatorizado multicéntrico. La estrategia IPP consistió en una modificación de la posición, bloqueo neuromuscular profundo, y una distensión de la pared abdominal conseguida con la presión intraabdominal (intra-abdominal pressure, IAP) más baja en la que el espacio quirúrgico operativo siguiera siendo aceptable. La estrategia SPP consistió en una posición de acuerdo con la preferencia del cirujano, bloqueo neuromuscular moderado, e IAP fija de 12 mm Hg. El resultado primario fue la recuperación fisiológica postoperatoria, evaluada mediante la escala de calidad en la recuperación postoperatoria (Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale, PQRS). Los resultados secundarios incluyeron la recuperación en otros dominios y la recuperación global, la aparición de complicaciones intraoperatorias y postoperatorias, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, y los valores de los marcadores inflamatorios séricos durante tres días postoperatorios. RESULTADOS: De un total de 166 pacientes, 85 recibieron una estrategia IPP y 81 una estrategia SPP. La estrategia IPP se asoció con una elevada probabilidad de recuperación fisiológica (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio OR, 2,8 (i.c. del 95% 1,2-6,4); P = 0,017, razón de riesgo, 1,8 (i.c. del 95% 1,7-1,9), P = 0,05)). La estrategia IPP también se asoció con una elevada probabilidad de recuperación emotiva (P = 0,013) y global (P = 0,011). Los eventos adversos intraoperatorios fueron menos frecuentes con la estrategia IPP (P < 0,001) y la tasa neutrófilo-linfocito fue más baja (P = 0,029). No se observaron cambios en otras variables. CONCLUSIÓN: En esta cohorte de pacientes sometidos a cirugía colorrectal laparoscópica, una estrategia IPP se asoció con una recuperación más rápida, menos complicaciones intraoperatorias y menos inflamación en comparación con una estrategia SPP.

Correction to: An individualised versus a conventional pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy during colorectal laparoscopic surgery: rationale and study protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical study.

After publication of our article [1] the authors have notified us that there are changes in the primary outcome and the statistical analysis plan of the study.

Effect of Intraoperative High Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) With Recruitment Maneuvers vs Low PEEP on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Obese Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: An intraoperative higher level of positive end-expiratory positive pressure (PEEP) with alveolar recruitment maneuvers improves respiratory function in obese patients undergoing surgery, but the effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether a higher level of PEEP with alveolar recruitment maneuvers decreases postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients undergoing surgery compared with a lower level of PEEP. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of 2013 adults with body mass indices of 35 or greater and substantial risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who were undergoing noncardiac, nonneurological surgery under general anesthesia. The trial was conducted at 77 sites in 23 countries from July 2014-February 2018; final follow-up: May 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized to the high level of PEEP group (n = 989), consisting of a PEEP level of 12 cm H2O with alveolar recruitment maneuvers (a stepwise increase of tidal volume and eventually PEEP) or to the low level of PEEP group (n = 987), consisting of a PEEP level of 4 cm H2O. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with a tidal volume of 7 mL/kg of predicted body weight. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of pulmonary complications within the first 5 postoperative days, including respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, bronchospasm, new pulmonary infiltrates, pulmonary infection, aspiration pneumonitis, pleural effusion, atelectasis, cardiopulmonary edema, and pneumothorax. Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were intraoperative complications, including hypoxemia (oxygen desaturation with Spo2 ≤92% for >1 minute). Results: Among 2013 adults who were randomized, 1976 (98.2%) completed the trial (mean age, 48.8 years; 1381 [69.9%] women; 1778 [90.1%] underwent abdominal operations). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 211 of 989 patients (21.3%) in the high level of PEEP group compared with 233 of 987 patients (23.6%) in the low level of PEEP group (difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -5.9% to 1.4%]; risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.04]; P = .23). Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 were not significantly different between the high and low level of PEEP groups, and 3 were significantly different, including fewer patients with hypoxemia (5.0% in the high level of PEEP group vs 13.6% in the low level of PEEP group; difference, -8.6% [95% CI, -11.1% to 6.1%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among obese patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia, an intraoperative mechanical ventilation strategy with a higher level of PEEP and alveolar recruitment maneuvers, compared with a strategy with a lower level of PEEP, did not reduce postoperative pulmonary complications. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02148692.

Correction to: Protective ventilation with high versus low positive end-expiratory pressure during one-lung ventilation for thoracic surgery (PROTHOR): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

After publication of the original article [1], the authors have notified us that two of the collaborator first and last names have been inverted in the "PROTHOR Investigators" table.

An individualised versus a conventional pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy during colorectal laparoscopic surgery: rationale and study protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical study.

BACKGROUND: A recent study shows that a multifaceted strategy using an individualised intra-abdominal pressure titration strategy during colorectal laparoscopic surgery results in an acceptable workspace at low intra-abdominal pressure in most patients. The multifaceted strategy, focused on lower to individualised intra-abdominal pressures, includes prestretching the abdominal wall during initial insufflation, deep neuromuscular blockade, low tidal volume ventilation settings and a modified lithotomy position. The study presented here tests the hypothesis that this strategy improves outcomes of patients scheduled for colorectal laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: The Individualized Pneumoperitoneum Pressure in Colorectal Laparoscopic Surgery versus Standard Therapy (IPPCollapse-II) study is a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, single-blinded randomised 1:1 clinical study that runs in four academic hospitals in Spain. Patients scheduled for colorectal laparoscopic surgery with American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I to III who are aged > 18 years and are without cognitive deficits are randomised to an individualised pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy (the intervention group) or to a conventional pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy (the control group). The primary outcome is recovery assessed with the Post-operative Quality of Recovery Scale (PQRS) at postoperative day 1. Secondary outcomes include PQRS score in the post anaesthesia care unit and at postoperative day 3, postoperative complications until postoperative day 28, hospital length of stay and process-related outcomes. DISCUSSION: The IPPCollapse-II study will be the first randomised clinical study that assesses the impact of an individualised pneumoperitoneum pressure strategy focused on working with the lowest intra-abdominal pressure during colorectal laparoscopic surgery on relevant patient-centred outcomes. The results of this large study, to be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in international peer-reviewed journals, are of ultimate importance for optimising the care and safety of laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Selection of patient-reported outcomes as the primary outcome of this study facilitates the translation into clinical practice. Access to source data will be made available through anonymised datasets upon request and after agreement of the Steering Committee of the IPPCollapse-II study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02773173 . Registered on 16 May 2016. EudraCT, 2016-001693-15. Registered on 8 August 2016.