Ventilation and Complications after Lung Resection: Reply.

Abstract

We thank Dr. Hoftman and Dr. Umar for their comments1 and their interest in our focused review.2 In their letter to the editor, they refer to their interesting work on the utility of vital capacity to estimate tidal volume in contrast to the widely used predicted body weight in patients undergoing thoracic surgery. Their work did not report on clinical outcomes.3 As these authors acknowledge, their data were derived from a small retrospective dataset, and their results are exploratory. Large clinical trials should be conducted before revising clinical care pathways.1,3 In the continuously enhanced world of personalized medicine, dogma most certainly should be challenged. Our review presented clinical outcome data that showed conflicting results on the association of not only tidal volume but also other parameters of protective lung ventilation bundles and morbidity in patients undergoing lung resection. We stressed the importance of proven risk factors for postoperative pulmonary complications after lung resection, such as decrements in forced expiratory volume in 1 s or diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide and greater fluid administration during surgery, to be considered when interpreting observational data or in the design of future studies.The expert in mechanical ventilation will stylize many factors including the inspiratory pressures and time, positive end-expiratory pressure, lung compliance, and respiratory rate to optimize breath delivery, which can change hour by hour during surgery. Promoting novices to experts certainly depends on education and experience. Algorithms and consultations with experts can improve critical care delivery. Designing ventilators with machine learning computers could potentially further personalize care.The authors declare no competing interests.