Variable versus conventional lung protective mechanical ventilation during open abdominal surgery (PROVAR): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Experimental studies showed that controlled variable ventilation (CVV) yielded better pulmonary function compared to non-variable ventilation (CNV) in injured lungs. We hypothesized that CVV improves intraoperative and postoperative respiratory function in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery. METHODS: Fifty patients planned for open abdominal surgery lasting >3 h were randomly assigned to receive either CVV or CNV. Mean tidal volumes and PEEP were set at 8 ml kg-1 (predicted body weight) and 5 cm H2O, respectively. In CVV, tidal volumes varied randomly, following a normal distribution, on a breath-by-breath basis. The primary endpoint was the forced vital capacity (FVC) on postoperative Day 1. Secondary endpoints were oxygenation, non-aerated lung volume, distribution of ventilation, and pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications until postoperative Day 5. RESULTS: FVC did not differ significantly between CVV and CNV on postoperative Day 1, 61.5 (standard deviation 22.1) % vs 61.9 (23.6) %, respectively; mean [95% confidence interval (CI)] difference, -0.4 (-13.2-14.0), P=0.95. Intraoperatively, CVV did not result in improved respiratory function, haemodynamics, or redistribution of ventilation compared to CNV. Postoperatively, FVC, forced expiratory volume at the first second (FEV1), and FEV1/FVC deteriorated, while atelectasis volume and plasma levels of interleukin-6 and interleukin-8 increased, but values did not differ between groups. The incidence of postoperative pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications was comparable in CVV and CNV. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing open abdominal surgery, CVV did not improve intraoperative and postoperative respiratory function compared with CNV. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT 01683578.

[Acute respiratory distress syndrome : Basic principles and treatment]. / Akutes Lungenversagen : Grundlagen und Therapie.

Even after many years of intensive research acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still associated with a high mortality. Epidemiologically, ARDS represents a central challenge for modern intensive care treatment. The multifactorial etiology of ARDS complicates the clear identification and evaluation of new therapeutic interventions. Lung protective mechanical ventilation and adjuvant therapies, such as the prone position and targeted extracorporeal lung support are of particular importance in the treatment of ARDS, depending on the severity of the disease. In order to guarantee an individualized and needs-adapted treatment, ARDS patients benefit from treatment in specialized centers.

Open lung approach vs acute respiratory distress syndrome network ventilation in experimental acute lung injury.

BACKGROUND: Setting and strategies of mechanical ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in acute lung injury (ALI) remains controversial. This study compares the effects between lung-protective mechanical ventilation according to the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network recommendations (ARDSnet) and the open lung approach (OLA) on pulmonary function and inflammatory response. METHODS: Eighteen juvenile pigs were anaesthetized, mechanically ventilated, and instrumented. ALI was induced by surfactant washout. Animals were randomly assigned to mechanical ventilation according to the ARDSnet protocol or the OLA (n=9 per group). Gas exchange, haemodynamics, pulmonary blood flow (PBF) distribution, and respiratory mechanics were measured at intervals and the lungs were removed after 6 h of mechanical ventilation for further analysis. RESULTS: PEEP and mean airway pressure were higher in the OLA than in the ARDSnet group [15 cmH(2)O, range 14-18 cmH(2)O, compared with 12 cmH(2)O; 20.5 (sd 2.3) compared with 18 (1.4) cmH(2)O by the end of the experiment, respectively], and OLA was associated with improved oxygenation compared with the ARDSnet group after 6 h. OLA showed more alveolar overdistension, especially in gravitationally non-dependent regions, while the ARDSnet group was associated with more intra-alveolar haemorrhage. Inflammatory mediators and markers of lung parenchymal stress did not differ significantly between groups. The PBF shifted from ventral to dorsal during OLA compared with ARDSnet protocol [-0.02 (-0.09 to -0.01) compared with -0.08 (-0.12 to -0.06), dorsal-ventral gradients after 6 h, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: According to the OLA, mechanical ventilation improved oxygenation and redistributed pulmonary perfusion when compared with the ARDSnet protocol, without differences in lung inflammatory response.

[Anesthesia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases]. / Anästhesie bei Patienten mit chronisch obstruktiven Lungenerkrankungen.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD/pulmonary emphysema) is a common disease with a high incidence and a medico-economical impact which should not be underestimated. Pathophysiologically it is defined as expiratory obstruction due to increased airway resistance. The extensive comorbidity of COPD patients as well as the impairment of the respiratory system make COPD a key challenge for anesthesiologists. Besides basic drug therapy, differentiated ventilation support represents a hallmark of perioperative management. This article includes the current recommendations of the German national care guidelines for COPD as well as the COPD guidelines of the American Thoracic Society.