Intra-operative ventilator mechanical power as a predictor of postoperative pulmonary complications in surgical patients: A secondary analysis of a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies in critically ill patients suggest a relationship between mechanical power (an index of the energy delivered by the ventilator, which includes driving pressure, respiratory rate, tidal volume and inspiratory pressure) and complications. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the association between intra-operative mechanical power and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of a large randomised clinical trial. SETTING: University-affiliated academic tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia, from February 2015 to February 2019. PATIENTS: Adult patients undergoing major noncardiothoracic, nonintracranial surgery. INTERVENTION: Dynamic mechanical power was calculated using the power equation adjusted by the respiratory system compliance (CRS). Multivariable models were used to assess the independent association between mechanical power and outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence of PPCs within the first seven postoperative days. The secondary outcome was the incidence of acute respiratory failure. RESULTS: We studied 1156 patients (median age [IQR]: 64 [55 to 72] years, 59.5% men). Median mechanical power adjusted by CRS was 0.32 [0.22 to 0.51] (J min-1)/(ml cmH2O-1). A higher mechanical power was also independently associated with increased risk of PPCs [odds ratio (OR 1.34, 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.52); P < 0.001) and acute respiratory failure (OR 1.40, 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.61; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients receiving ventilation during major noncardiothoracic, nonintracranial surgery, exposure to a higher mechanical power was independently associated with an increased risk of PPCs and acute respiratory failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry no: 12614000790640.

Predictors of death and new disability after critical illness: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the prevalence and predictors of death or new disability following critical illness. METHODS: Prospective, multicentre cohort study conducted in six metropolitan intensive care units (ICU). Participants were adults admitted to the ICU who received more than 24 h of mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was death or new disability at 6 months, with new disability defined by a 10% increase in the WHODAS 2.0. RESULTS: Of 628 patients with the primary outcome available (median age of 62 [49-71] years, 379 [61.0%] had a medical admission and 370 (58.9%) died or developed new disability by 6 months. Independent predictors of death or new disability included age [OR 1.02 (1.01-1.03), P = 0.001], higher severity of illness (APACHE III) [OR 1.02 (1.01-1.03), P < 0.001] and admission diagnosis. Compared to patients with a surgical admission diagnosis, patients with a cardiac arrest [OR (95% CI) 4.06 (1.89-8.68), P < 0.001], sepsis [OR (95% CI) 2.43 (1.32-4.47), P = 0.004], or trauma [OR (95% CI) 6.24 (3.07-12.71), P < 0.001] diagnosis had higher odds of death or new disability, while patients with a lung transplant [OR (95% CI) 0.21 (0.07-0.58), P = 0.003] diagnosis had lower odds. A model including these three variables had good calibration (Brier score 0.20) and acceptable discriminative power with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.80). CONCLUSION: Less than half of all patients mechanically ventilated for more than 24 h were alive and free of new disability at 6 months after admission to ICU. A model including age, illness severity and admission diagnosis has acceptable discriminative ability to predict death or new disability at 6 months.

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.