Tidal volume during 1-lung ventilation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundThe selection of tidal volumes for 1-lung ventilation remains unclear, because there exists a trade-off between oxygenation and risk of lung injury. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine how oxygenation, compliance, and clinical outcomes are affected by tidal volume during 1-lung ventilation. MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Pooled mean difference estimated arterial oxygen tension, compliance, and length of stay; pooled odds ratio was calculated for composite postoperative pulmonary complications. Risk of bias was determined using the Cochrane risk of bias and Newcastle-Ottawa tools. ResultsEighteen studies were identified, comprising 3693 total patients. Low tidal volumes (5.6 [±0.9] mL/kg) were not associated with significant differences in partial pressure of oxygen (−15.64 [−88.53-57.26] mm Hg; P = .67), arterial oxygen tension to fractional intake of oxygen ratio (14.71 [−7.83-37.24]; P = .20), or compliance (2.03 [−5.22-9.27] mL/cmH2O; P = .58) versus conventional tidal volume ventilation (8.1 [±3.1] mL/kg). Low versus conventional tidal volume ventilation had no significant impact on hospital length of stay (−0.42 [−1.60-0.77] days; P = .49). Low tidal volumes are associated with significantly decreased odds of pulmonary complications (pooled odds ratio, 0.40 [0.29-0.57]; P < .0001). ConclusionsLow tidal volumes during 1-lung ventilation do not worsen oxygenation or compliance. A low tidal volume ventilation strategy during 1-lung ventilation was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative pulmonary complications.