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.

Open lung approach versus standard protective strategies: Effects on driving pressure and ventilatory efficiency during anesthesia - A pilot, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low tidal volume (VT) during anesthesia minimizes lung injury but may be associated to a decrease in functional lung volume impairing lung mechanics and efficiency. Lung recruitment (RM) can restore lung volume but this may critically depend on the post-RM selected PEEP. This study was a randomized, two parallel arm, open study whose primary outcome was to compare the effects on driving pressure of adding a RM to low-VT ventilation, with or without an individualized post-RM PEEP in patients without known previous lung disease during anesthesia. METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery were submitted to low-VT ventilation (6 ml·kg-1) and standard PEEP of 5 cmH2O (pre-RM, n = 36). After 30 min estabilization all patients received a RM and were randomly allocated to either continue with the same PEEP (RM-5 group, n = 18) or to an individualized open-lung PEEP (OL-PEEP) (Open Lung Approach, OLA group, n = 18) defined as the level resulting in maximal Cdyn during a decremental PEEP trial. We compared the effects on driving pressure and lung efficiency measured by volumetric capnography. RESULTS: OL-PEEP was found at 8±2 cmH2O. 36 patients were included in the final analysis. When compared with pre-RM, OLA resulted in a 22% increase in compliance and a 28% decrease in driving pressure when compared to pre-RM. These parameters did not improve in the RM-5. The trend of the DP was significantly different between the OLA and RM-5 groups (p = 0.002). VDalv/VTalv was significantly lower in the OLA group after the RM (p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Lung recruitment applied during low-VT ventilation improves driving pressure and lung efficiency only when applied as an open-lung strategy with an individualized PEEP in patients without lung diseases undergoing major abdominal surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02798133.

Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis in a surgical intensive care unit: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Invasive candidiasis (IC) is a frequent and life-threatening infection in critically ill patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the epidemiology of IC and the antifungal susceptibility of etiological agents in patients admitted to our surgical intensive care unit (SICU) in Spain. METHODS: We designed a prospective, observational, single center, population-based study in a SICU. We included all consecutive adult patients (≥18 years old) who had documented IC, either on admission or during their stay, between January 2012 and December 2013. RESULTS: There were a total of 22 episodes of IC in the 1149 patients admitted during the 24-month study. The overall IC incidence was 19.1 cases per 1000 admissions. Thirteen cases of IC (59.1%) were intra-abdominal candidiasis (IAC) and 9 (40.9%) were candidemias. All cases of IAC were patients with secondary peritonitis and severe sepsis or septic shock. The overall crude mortality rate was 13.6%; while, it was 33% in patients with candidemia. All patients with IAC survived, including one patient with concomitant candidemia. The most common species causing IC was Candida albicans (13; 59.1%) followed by Candida parapsilosis (5; 22.7%), and Candida glabrata (2; 9.1%). There was also one case each (4.5%) of Candida krusei and Candida tropicalis. Thus, the ratio of non-C. albicans (9) to C. albicans (13) was 1:1.4. There was resistance to fluconazole and itraconazole in 13.6% of cases. Resistance to other antifungals was uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Candida parapsilosis was the second most common species after C. albicans, indicating the high prevalence of non-C. albicans species in the SICU. Resistance to azoles, particularly fluconazole, should be considered when starting an empirical treatment. Although IAC is a very frequent form of IC in critically ill surgical patients, prompt antifungal therapy and adequate source control appears to lead to a good outcome. However, our results are closely related to our ICU and any generalization must be taken with caution. Therefore, further investigations are needed.