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.

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

Insorsi, A.;Tarantino, F.;Ball, L.;Pelosi, P.;
2018

Abstract

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.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2018 BJA_Provar.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in versione editoriale
Dimensione 804.71 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
804.71 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11567/942655
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 6
  • Scopus 12
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 12
social impact