Rationale and Study Design for an Individualized Perioperative Open Lung Ventilatory Strategy in Patients on One-Lung Ventilation (iPROVE-OLV).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this clinical trial is to examine whether it is possible to reduce postoperative complications using an individualized perioperative ventilatory strategy versus using a standard lung-protective ventilation strategy in patients scheduled for thoracic surgery requiring one-lung ventilation. DESIGN: International, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: A network of university hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprises 1,380 patients scheduled for thoracic surgery. INTERVENTIONS: The individualized group will receive intraoperative recruitment maneuvers followed by individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (open lung approach) during the intraoperative period plus postoperative ventilatory support with high-flow nasal cannula, whereas the control group will be managed with conventional lung-protective ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Individual and total number of postoperative complications, including atelectasis, pneumothorax, pleural effusion, pneumonia, acute lung injury; unplanned readmission and reintubation; length of stay and death in the critical care unit and in the hospital will be analyzed for both groups. The authors hypothesize that the intraoperative application of an open lung approach followed by an individual indication of high-flow nasal cannula in the postoperative period will reduce pulmonary complications and length of hospital stay in high-risk surgical patients.

Pressure-controlled versus volume-controlled ventilation during one-lung ventilation for thoracic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) has been suggested as a tool to improve oxygenation during one-lung ventilation (OLV) for patients undergoing thoracic surgery. In this study we investigated whether PCV results in improved arterial oxygenation compared with volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) during OLV. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with good preoperative pulmonary function scheduled for thoracic surgery were prospectively randomized into two groups. Those in group A underwent OLV initially with VCV for 30 min followed by PCV for a similar period of time. Those in group B underwent OLV initially with PCV for 30 min followed by VCV for a similar duration. Airway pressures and arterial blood gases were obtained during OLV at the end of each ventilatory mode. RESULTS: There were no differences during OLV in arterial oxygenation between VCV (Pao2, 206.1 +/- 62.4 mm Hg) and PCV (Pao2, 202.1 +/- 56.4 mm Hg; P = 0.534). Peak airway pressure was lower with PCV than with VCV (24.43 +/- 3.42 cm H2O vs. 34.16 +/- 5.21 cm H2O; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of PCV during OLV does not lead to improved oxygenation during OLV compared with VCV for patients with good preoperative pulmonary function, but PCV did lead to lower peak airway pressures. Further study is needed for patients with severe obstructive or restrictive pulmonary disease.

Endobronchial high-frequency jet ventilation for endobronchial laser surgery: an alternative approach.

IMPLICATIONS: We describe a technique of one-lung high-frequency jet ventilation surgery with continuous monitoring of airway pressures that achieves satisfactory operating conditions with less complications than other similar approaches.