Intraoperative Positive End-expiratory Pressure for Obese Patients: A Step Forward, a Long Road Still Ahead.

Electrical Impedance Tomography to Set Positive End Expiratory Pressure During Pediatric Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Respiratory Failure... Is it Feasible?

Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) increase the morbidity and mortality of surgery in obese patients. High levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with lung recruitment maneuvers may improve intraoperative respiratory function, but they can also compromise hemodynamics, and the effects on PPCs are uncertain. We hypothesized that intraoperative mechanical ventilation using high PEEP with periodic recruitment maneuvers, as compared with low PEEP without recruitment maneuvers, prevents PPCs in obese patients. The PRotective Ventilation with Higher versus Lower PEEP during General Anesthesia for Surgery in OBESE Patients (PROBESE) study is a multicenter, two-arm, international randomized controlled trial. In total, 2013 obese patients with body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 scheduled for at least 2 h of surgery under general anesthesia and at intermediate to high risk for PPCs will be included. Patients are ventilated intraoperatively with a low tidal volume of 7 ml/kg (predicted body weight) and randomly assigned to PEEP of 12 cmH2O with lung recruitment maneuvers (high PEEP) or PEEP of 4 cmH2O without recruitment maneuvers (low PEEP). The occurrence of PPCs will be recorded as collapsed composite of single adverse pulmonary events and represents the primary endpoint. To our knowledge, the PROBESE trial is the first multicenter, international randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of two different levels of intraoperative PEEP during protective low tidal volume ventilation on PPCs in obese patients. The results of the PROBESE trial will support anesthesiologists in their decision to choose a certain PEEP level during general anesthesia for surgery in obese patients in an attempt to prevent PPCs. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02148692. Registered on 23 May 2014; last updated 7 June 2016.

Positive end-expiratory pressure in obese patients during general anaesthesia. The role of intra-abdominal pressure

BackgroundPostoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) increase the morbidity and mortality of surgery in obese patients. High levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with lung recruitment maneuvers may improve intraoperative respiratory function, but they can also compromise hemodynamics, and the effects on PPCs are uncertain. We hypothesized that intraoperative mechanical ventilation using high PEEP with periodic recruitment maneuvers, as compared with low PEEP without recruitment maneuvers, prevents PPCs in obese patients.Methods/designThe PRotective Ventilation with Higher versus Lower PEEP during General Anesthesia for Surgery in OBESE Patients (PROBESE) study is a multicenter, two-arm, international randomized controlled trial. In total, 2013 obese patients with body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 scheduled for at least 2 h of surgery under general anesthesia and at intermediate to high risk for PPCs will be included. Patients are ventilated intraoperatively with a low tidal volume of 7 ml/kg (predicted body weight) and randomly assigned to PEEP of 12 cmH2O with lung recruitment maneuvers (high PEEP) or PEEP of 4 cmH2O without recruitment maneuvers (low PEEP). The occurrence of PPCs will be recorded as collapsed composite of single adverse pulmonary events and represents the primary endpoint.DiscussionTo our knowledge, the PROBESE trial is the first multicenter, international randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of two different levels of intraoperative PEEP during protective low tidal volume ventilation on PPCs in obese patients. The results of the PROBESE trial will support anesthesiologists in their decision to choose a certain PEEP level during general anesthesia for surgery in obese patients in an attempt to prevent PPCs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02148692. Registered on 23 May 2014; last updated 7 June 2016.

BackgroundVarious Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) titration strategies have been proposed to optimize ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to compare PEEP titration strategies based on electrical impedance tomography (EIT) to methods derived from respiratory system mechanics with or without esophageal pressure measurements, in terms of PEEP levels and association with recruitability.MethodsNineteen patients with ARDS were enrolled. Recruitability was assessed by the estimated Recruitment-to-Inflation ratio (R/Iest) between PEEP 15 and 5 cmH2O. Then, a decremental PEEP trial from PEEP 20 to 5 cmH2O was performed. PEEP levels determined by the following strategies were studied: (1) plateau pressure 28–30 cmH2O (Express), (2) minimal positive expiratory transpulmonary pressure (Positive PLe), (3) center of ventilation closest to 0.5 (CoV) and (4) intersection of the EIT-based overdistension and lung collapse curves (Crossing Point). In addition, the PEEP levels determined by the Crossing Point strategy were assessed using different PEEP ranges during the decremental PEEP trial.ResultsExpress and CoV strategies led to higher PEEP levels than the Positive PLe and Crossing Point ones (17 [14–17], 20 [17–20], 8 [5–11], 10 [8–11] respectively, p < 0.001). For each strategy, there was no significant association between the optimal PEEP level and R/Iest (Crossing Point: r2 = 0.073, p = 0.263; CoV: r2 < 0.001, p = 0.941; Express: r2 < 0.001, p = 0.920; Positive PLe: r2 = 0.037, p = 0.461). The PEEP level obtained with the Crossing Point strategy was impacted by the PEEP range used during the decremental PEEP trial.ConclusionsCoV and Express strategies led to higher PEEP levels than the Crossing Point and Positive PLe strategies. Optimal PEEP levels proposed by these four methods were not associated with recruitability. Recruitability should be specifically assessed in ARDS patients to optimize PEEP titration.

Background: To find the optimal positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) in mechanical ventilated patients without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different level of PEEP based on a novel classification of PEEP level: ZEEP group (PEEP = 0 cm H2O); lower PEEP group (PEEP = 1–6 cm H2O); intermediate PEEP group (PEEP = 7–10 cm H2O); higher PEEP group (PEEP > 10 cm H2O).Result: Twenty eight eligible studies with 2,712 patients were included. There were no significant differences in the duration of mechanical ventilation between higher and intermediate PEEP (MD: 0.020, 95% CI: −0.14, 0.28), higher and lower PEEP (MD: −0.010, 95% CI: −0.23, 0.22), higher PEEP and ZEEP (MD: 0.010, 95% CI: −0.40, 0.22), intermediate and lower PEEP (MD: −0.040, 95% CI: −0.18, 0.040), intermediate PEEP and ZEEP (MD: −0.010, 95% CI: −0.42, 0.10), lower PEEP and ZEEP (MD: 0.020, 95% CI: −0.32, 0.13), respectively. Higher PEEP was associated with significantly higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio(PFR) when compared to ZEEP (MD: 73.24, 95% CI: 11.03, 130.7), and higher incidence of pneumothorax when compared to intermediate PEEP, lower PEEP and ZEEP (OR: 2.91e + 12, 95% CI: 40.3, 1.76e + 39; OR: 1.85e + 12, 95% CI: 29.2, 1.18e + 39; and OR: 1.44e + 12, 95% CI: 16.9, 8.70e + 38, respectively). There was no association between PEEP levels and other secondary outcomes.Conclusion: We identified higher PEEP was associated with significantly higher PFR and higher incidence of pneumothorax. Nonetheless, in terms of other outcomes, no significant differences were detected among four levels of PEEP.Systematic Review Registration: The study had registered on an international prospective register of systematic reviews, PROSPERO, on 09 April 2021, identifier: [CRD42021241745].

Still looking for best PEEP.

Identifying Optimal Positive End-Expiratory Pressure by Body Mass Index Does Not Account for Natural Physiologic Variability in Pleural Pressure.

Assessment of electrical impedance tomography to set optimal positive end-expiratory pressure for veno-venous ECMO-treated severe ARDS patients.

General anesthesia may cause atelectasis and deterioration in oxygenation in obese patients. The authors hypothesized that individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) improves intraoperative oxygenation and ventilation distribution compared to fixed PEEP. This secondary analysis included all obese patients recruited at University Hospital of Leipzig from the multicenter Protective Intraoperative Ventilation with Higher versus Lower Levels of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Obese Patients (PROBESE) trial (n = 42) and likewise all obese patients from a local single-center trial (n = 54). Inclusion criteria for both trials were elective laparoscopic abdominal surgery, body mass index greater than or equal to 35 kg/m2, and Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia (ARISCAT) score greater than or equal to 26. Patients were randomized to PEEP of 4 cm H2O (n = 19) or a recruitment maneuver followed by PEEP of 12 cm H2O (n = 21) in the PROBESE study. In the single-center study, they were randomized to PEEP of 5 cm H2O (n = 25) or a recruitment maneuver followed by individualized PEEP (n = 25) determined by electrical impedance tomography. Primary endpoint was Pao2/inspiratory oxygen fraction before extubation and secondary endpoints included intraoperative tidal volume distribution to dependent lung and driving pressure. Ninety patients were evaluated in three groups after combining the two lower PEEP groups. Median individualized PEEP was 18 (interquartile range, 16 to 22; range, 10 to 26) cm H2O. Pao2/inspiratory oxygen fraction before extubation was 515 (individual PEEP), 370 (fixed PEEP of 12 cm H2O), and 305 (fixed PEEP of 4 to 5 cm H2O) mmHg (difference to individualized PEEP, 145; 95% CI, 91 to 200; P < 0.001 for fixed PEEP of 12 cm H2O and 210; 95% CI, 164 to 257; P < 0.001 for fixed PEEP of 4 to 5 cm H2O). Intraoperative tidal volume in the dependent lung areas was 43.9% (individualized PEEP), 25.9% (fixed PEEP of 12 cm H2O) and 26.8% (fixed PEEP of 4 to 5 cm H2O) (difference to individualized PEEP: 18.0%; 95% CI, 8.0 to 20.7; P < 0.001 for fixed PEEP of 12 cm H2O and 17.1%; 95% CI, 10.0 to 20.6; P < 0.001 for fixed PEEP of 4 to 5 cm H2O). Mean intraoperative driving pressure was 9.8 cm H2O (individualized PEEP), 14.4 cm H2O (fixed PEEP of 12 cm H2O), and 18.8 cm H2O (fixed PEEP of 4 to 5 cm H2O), P < 0.001. This secondary analysis of obese patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery found better oxygenation, lower driving pressures, and redistribution of ventilation toward dependent lung areas measured by electrical impedance tomography using individualized PEEP. The impact on patient outcome remains unclear.

Higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels may reduce atelectrauma, but increase over-distention lung injury. Whether higher PEEP improves clinical outcomes among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unclear. To compare clinical outcomes of mechanical ventilation strategies using higher PEEP levels versus lower PEEP strategies in patients with ARDS. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials investigating mechanical ventilation strategies using higher versus lower PEEP levels. We used random effects models to evaluate the effect of higher PEEP on 28-day mortality, organ failure, ventilator-free days, barotrauma, oxygenation, and ventilation. We identified eight randomized trials comparing higher versus lower PEEP strategies, enrolling 2,728 patients with ARDS. Patients were 55 (±16) (mean ± SD) years old and 61% were men. Mean PEEP in the higher PEEP groups was 15.1 (±3.6) cm H2O as compared with 9.1 (±2.7) cm H2O in the lower PEEP groups. Primary analysis excluding two trials that did not use lower Vt ventilation in the lower PEEP control groups did not demonstrate significantly reduced mortality for patients receiving higher PEEP as compared with a lower PEEP (six trials; 2,580 patients; relative risk, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80-1.03). A higher PEEP strategy also did not significantly decrease barotrauma, new organ failure, or ventilator-free days when compared with a lower PEEP strategy (moderate-level evidence). Quality of evidence for primary analyses was downgraded for precision, as CIs of outcomes included estimates that would result in divergent recommendations for use of higher PEEP. Secondary analysis, including trials that did not use low Vt in low-PEEP control groups, showed significant mortality reduction for high-PEEP strategies (eight trials; 2,728 patients; relative risk, 0.84; 95% CI = 0.71-0.99), with greater mortality benefit observed for high PEEP in trials that did not use lower Vts in the low-PEEP control group (P = 0.02). Analyses stratifying by use of recruitment maneuvers (P for interaction = 0.69), or use of physiological targets to set PEEP versus PEEP/FiO2 tables (P for interaction = 0.13), did not show significant effect modification. Use of higher PEEP is unlikely to improve clinical outcomes among unselected patients with ARDS.

Editor, We read with interest the article ‘Comparison of low and high positive end-expiratory pressure during low tidal volume ventilation in robotic gynaecological surgical patients using electrical impedance tomography’ by Chun et al.1 The finding that a low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level may be sufficient in the selected study group is not surprising considering that the study population was quite young and without overweight people (mean BMI 22.4 and 23.4 kg m−2 in the two groups, respectively). Thus, the study population likely consisted of individuals with high lung elasticity and little tendency for airway closure. There was no difference between the two study groups in arterial blood gases or the widely recognised oxygenation index PaO2/FiO2. However, the authors report a significant difference between groups in the obscure oxygenation index called ‘oxygenation factor’. This factor is derived from calculating PaO2/(FiO2 x MPAW), where MPAW is the mean airway pressure, and has been found to be inversely correlated to the degree of intrapulmonary shunting.2 As the authors found a significant higher oxygenation factor in the low PEEP group compared with the high PEEP group, they suggest that a ‘PEEP of 4 cmH2O might be better for ventilation strategy in consideration of intrapulmonary shunt’.1 Several objections may be raised in regard to this proposition, apart from the fact that the oxygenation factor appears to be a post hoc analysis. First, the oxygenation factor was validated treating postoperative patients with PEEP following cardiac surgery.2 In contrast, Chun et al.1 prophylactically and randomly assigned healthy patients with no preceding impact on lung physiology to two different PEEP levels. Second, we find it very unlikely that the intrapulmonary shunt would be less with PEEP of 4 cmH2O than with PEEP 8 cmH2O.3 How could that possibly be physiologically explained when the intrapulmonary shunt primarily correlates with the amount of atelectatic lung tissue? In our opinion, the effect on the oxygenation factor is simply a mathematical consequence of the different levels of PEEP. We welcome the study by Chen et al.,1 as it adds further knowledge regarding intra-operative ventilation of the healthy and normal-weight patient. However, the discussion regarding optimal PEEP during general anaesthesia is already complex and confusing. We therefore believe it is important to be careful when discussing the physiological mechanisms and possible further implications from this study, not to add further confusion. Acknowledgements relating to this article Assistance with the letter: none. Financial support and sponsorship: none. Conflicts of interest: none.

RationaleThere are several approaches to select the optimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), resulting in different PEEP levels. The impact of different PEEP settings may extend beyond respiratory mechanics, affecting pulmonary hemodynamics.ObjectivesTo compare PEEP levels obtained with three titration strategies—(i) highest respiratory system compliance (CRS), (ii) electrical impedance tomography (EIT) crossing point; (iii) positive end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (PL)—in terms of regional respiratory mechanics and pulmonary hemodynamics.MethodsExperimental studies in two porcine models of acute lung injury: (I) bilateral injury induced in both lungs, generating a highly recruitable model (n = 37); (II) asymmetrical injury, generating a poorly recruitable model (n = 13). In all experiments, a decremental PEEP titration was performed monitoring PL, EIT (collapse, overdistention, and regional ventilation), respiratory mechanics, and pulmonary and systemic hemodynamics.Measurements and main resultsPEEP titration methods resulted in different levels of median optimal PEEP in bilateral lung injury: 14(12–14) cmH2O for CRS, 11(10–12) cmH2O for EIT, and 8(8–10) cmH2O for PL, p < 0.001. Differences were less pronounced in asymmetrical lung injury. PEEP had a quadratic U-shape relationship with pulmonary artery pressure (R2 = 0.94, p < 0.001), right-ventricular systolic transmural pressure, and pulmonary vascular resistance. Minimum values of pulmonary vascular resistance were found around individualized PEEP, when ventilation distribution and pulmonary circulation were simultaneously optimized.ConclusionsIn porcine models of acute lung injury with variable lung recruitability, both low and high levels of PEEP can impair pulmonary hemodynamics. Optimized ventilation and hemodynamics can be obtained simultaneously at PEEP levels individualized based on respiratory mechanics, especially by EIT and esophageal pressure.

The Trendelenburg position with pneumoperitoneum during surgery promotes dorsobasal atelectasis formation, which impairs respiratory mechanics and increases lung stress and strain. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can reduce pulmonary inhomogeneities and preserve end-expiratory lung volume (EELV), resulting in decreased inspiratory strain and improved gas-exchange. The optimal intraoperative PEEP strategy is unclear. To compare the effects of individualised PEEP titration strategies on set PEEP levels and resulting transpulmonary pressures, respiratory mechanics, gas-exchange and haemodynamics during Trendelenburg position with pneumoperitoneum. Prospective, randomised, crossover single-centre physiologic trial. University hospital. Thirty-six patients receiving robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Randomised sequence of three different PEEP strategies: standard PEEP level of 5 cmH 2 O (PEEP 5 ), PEEP titration targeting a minimal driving pressure (PEEP ΔP ) and oesophageal pressure-guided PEEP titration (PEEP Poeso ) targeting an end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure ( PTP ) of 0 cmH 2 O. The primary endpoint was the PEEP level when set according to PEEP ΔP and PEEP Poeso compared with PEEP of 5 cmH 2 O. Secondary endpoints were respiratory mechanics, lung volumes, gas-exchange and haemodynamic parameters. PEEP levels differed between PEEP ΔP , PEEP Poeso and PEEP5 (18.0 [16.0 to 18.0] vs. 20.0 [18.0 to 24.0]vs. 5.0 [5.0 to 5.0] cmH 2 O; P < 0.001 each). End-expiratory PTP and lung volume were lower in PEEP ΔP compared with PEEP Poeso ( P = 0.014 and P < 0.001, respectively), but driving pressure, lung stress, as well as respiratory system and dynamic elastic power were minimised using PEEP ΔP ( P < 0.001 each). PEEP ΔP and PEEP Poeso improved gas-exchange, but PEEP Poeso resulted in lower cardiac output compared with PEEP 5 and PEEP ΔP . PEEP ΔP ameliorated the effects of Trendelenburg position with pneumoperitoneum during surgery on end-expiratory PTP and lung volume, decreased driving pressure and dynamic elastic power, as well as improved gas-exchange while preserving cardiac output. German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00028559, date of registration 2022/04/27). https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00028559.

Background: Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) optimization during prone positioning remains under debate in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This study aimed to investigate the effect of prone position on the optimal PEEP guided by electrical impedance tomography (EIT).Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis on nineteen ARDS patients in a single intensive care unit. All patients underwent PEEP titration guided by EIT in both supine and prone positions. EIT-derived parameters, including center of ventilation (CoV), regional ventilation delay (RVD), percentage of overdistension (OD) and collapse (CL) were calculated. Optimal PEEP was defined as the PEEP level with minimal sum of OD and CL. Patients were divided into two groups: 1) Lower Optimal PEEPPP (LOP), where optimal PEEP was lower in the prone than in the supine position, and 2) Not-Lower Optimal PEEPPP (NLOP), where optimal PEEP was not lower in the prone compared with the supine position.Results: Eleven patients were classified as LOP (9 [8-9] vs. 12 [10-15] cmH2O; PEEP in prone vs. supine). In the NLOP group, optimal PEEP increased after prone positioning in four patients and remained unchanged in the other four patients. Patients in the LOP group had a significantly higher body mass index (26 [25-28] vs. 22 [17-25] kg/m2; p = 0.009) and lower ICU mortality (0/11 vs. 4/8; p = 0.018) compared with the NLOP group. Besides, PaO2/FiO2 increased significantly during prone positioning in the LOP group (238 [170-291] vs. 186 [141-195] mmHg; p = 0.042). CoV and RVD were also significantly improved during prone positioning in LOP group. No such effects were found in the NLOP group.Conclusion: Broad variability in optimal PEEP between supine and prone position was observed in the studied ARDS patients. Not all patients showed decreased optimal PEEP during prone positioning. Patients with higher body mass index exhibited lower optimal PEEP in prone position, better oxygenation and ventilation homogeneity.