Effects of oxygen on post-surgical infections during an individualised perioperative open-lung ventilatory strategy: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

We aimed to examine whether using a high fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO₂) in the context of an individualised intra- and postoperative open-lung ventilation approach could decrease surgical site infection (SSI) in patients scheduled for abdominal surgery.

METHODS

We performed a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial in a network of 21 university hospitals from June 6, 2017 to July 19, 2018. Patients undergoing abdominal surgery were randomly assigned to receive a high (0.80) or conventional (0.3) FIO₂ during the intraoperative period and during the first 3 postoperative hours. All patients were mechanically ventilated with an open-lung strategy, which included recruitment manoeuvres and individualised positive end-expiratory pressure for the best respiratory-system compliance, and individualised continuous postoperative airway pressure for adequate peripheral oxyhaemoglobin saturation. The primary outcome was the prevalence of SSI within the first 7 postoperative days. The secondary outcomes were composites of systemic complications, length of intensive care and hospital stay, and 6-month mortality.

RESULTS

We enrolled 740 subjects: 371 in the high FIO₂ group and 369 in the low FIO₂ group. Data from 717 subjects were available for final analysis. The rate of SSI during the first postoperative week did not differ between high (8.9%) and low (9.4%) FIO₂ groups (relative risk [RR]: 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.50; P=0.90]). Secondary outcomes, such as atelectasis (7.7% vs 9.8%; RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.48-1.25; P=0.38) and myocardial ischaemia (0.6% [n=2] vs 0% [n=0]; P=0.47) did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

An oxygenation strategy using high FIO₂ compared with conventional FIO₂ did not reduce postoperative SSIs in abdominal surgery. No differences in secondary outcomes or adverse events were found.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02776046.

Individualised perioperative open-lung approach versus standard protective ventilation in abdominal surgery (iPROVE): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The effects of individualised perioperative lung-protective ventilation (based on the open-lung approach [OLA]) on postoperative complications is unknown. We aimed to investigate the effects of intraoperative and postoperative ventilatory management in patients scheduled for abdominal surgery, compared with standard protective ventilation.

METHODS

We did this prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial in 21 teaching hospitals in Spain. We enrolled patients who were aged 18 years or older, were scheduled to have abdominal surgery with an expected time of longer than 2 h, had intermediate-to-high-risk of developing postoperative pulmonary complications, and who had a body-mass index less than 35 kg/m². Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) online to receive one of four lung-protective ventilation strategies using low tidal volume plus positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP): open-lung approach (OLA)-iCPAP (individualised intraoperative ventilation [individualised PEEP after a lung recruitment manoeuvre] plus individualised postoperative continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP]), OLA-CPAP (intraoperative individualised ventilation plus postoperative CPAP), STD-CPAP (standard intraoperative ventilation plus postoperative CPAP), or STD-O₂ (standard intraoperative ventilation plus standard postoperative oxygen therapy). Patients were masked to treatment allocation. Investigators were not masked in the operating and postoperative rooms; after 24 h, data were given to a second investigator who was masked to allocations. The primary outcome was a composite of pulmonary and systemic complications during the first 7 postoperative days. We did the primary analysis using the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02158923.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 2, 2015, and May 18, 2016, we enrolled 1012 eligible patients. Data were available for 967 patients, whom we included in the final analysis. Risk of pulmonary and systemic complications did not differ for patients in OLA-iCPAP (110 [46%] of 241, relative risk 0·89 [95% CI 0·74-1·07; p=0·25]), OLA-CPAP (111 [47%] of 238, 0·91 [0·76-1·09; p=0·35]), or STD-CPAP groups (118 [48%] of 244, 0·95 [0·80-1·14; p=0·65]) when compared with patients in the STD-O₂ group (125 [51%] of 244). Intraoperatively, PEEP was increased in 69 (14%) of patients in the standard perioperative ventilation groups because of hypoxaemia, and no patients from either of the OLA groups required rescue manoeuvres.

INTERPRETATION

In patients who have major abdominal surgery, the different perioperative open lung approaches tested in this study did not reduce the risk of postoperative complications when compared with standard lung-protective mechanical ventilation.

FUNDING

Instituto de Salud Carlos III of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, and Grants Programme of the European Society of Anaesthesiology.

Patient safety under deep sedation for digestive endoscopic procedures

Deep sedation with Propofol has become popular in recent years. The safety of this technique when administered by non-anaesthesiologists has created much controversy which at times is masked in a contentious debate on the economic sustainability of the health system. In 2011, the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy, along with 20 other organisations from European countries, revoked the recommendations of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy on the administration of Propofol by non-anaesthesiologists, citing that it is "extremely dangerous for the safety and quality of endoscopic procedures". The FDA in 2005 had already rejected the use of Propofol by non-anaesthesiologists in the United States, a prohibition which was reiterated in 2010 and is still in force, basing its evidence, among others, on the recommendations and guidelines of the Joint Commission and the Declaration of Helsinki. In Spain, the data sheet of Propofol restricts the use of the drug to anaesthesiologists and intensivists in intensive care units. In our opinion, the key elements to discuss (which we develop in our paper) are those related to: a) the morbidity and mortality of sedation (which is the same as speaking about the factors that influence its safety); b) the appropriate professionals to use this technique; and c) economic aspects related to the use of said technique. Our conclusion is that a technique cannot be declared safe when a high percentage of patients present with varying respiratory depression (and therefore hypoxaemia) and hypotension. We are confident that the collaboration of the Spanish Society of Digestive Pathology and the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy with the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation and Pain Therapy is the first step towards finding a satisfactory solution for everyone, and especially for our patients.

In response to the editorial "Sedation in endoscopy in 2016: Is it safe sedation with propofol led by the endoscopist in complex situations?"

It is universally accepted that deep sedation involves more risks than light-to-moderate sedation. Deep sedation for endoscopic explorations is normally provided by anesthesiologists in Spain and in most countries of the European Unión. The present debate about deep sedation-anesthesia states goes beyond the topic of cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events, and targets the cognitive consequences and global increased mortality of uncontrolled sedation states, especially in specific fragile populations. We consider that strong recomendations for sedative techniques in endoscopic procedures should be made in Spain taking in consideration to two basic principles: 1) according to published evidence concerning patient safety, deep sedation must be an unequivocal responsibility of the anesthesiologist, and 2) we must define which patients are candidates for deep sedation during endoscopic procedures, as this will help to regulate patient flow in clinics and to reduce adverse effects associated with overtreatment of patients.

Rationale and study design for an individualized perioperative open lung ventilatory strategy (iPROVE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pulmonary and non-pulmonary complications are common problems that increase morbidity and mortality in surgical patients, even though the incidence has decreased with the increased use of protective lung ventilation strategies. Previous trials have focused on standard strategies in the intraoperative or postoperative period, but without personalizing these strategies to suit the needs of each individual patient and without considering both these periods as a global perioperative lung-protective approach. The trial presented here aims at comparing postoperative complications when using an individualized ventilatory management strategy in the intraoperative and immediate postoperative periods with those when using a standard protective ventilation strategy in patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery.

METHODS

This is a comparative, prospective, multicenter, randomized, and controlled, four-arm trial that will include 1012 patients with an intermediate or high risk for postoperative pulmonary complications. The patients will be divided into four groups: (1) individualized perioperative group: intra- and postoperative individualized strategy; (2) intraoperative individualized strategy + postoperative continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP); (3) intraoperative standard ventilation + postoperative CPAP; (4) intra- and postoperative standard strategy (conventional strategy). The primary outcome is a composite analysis of postoperative complications.

DISCUSSION

The Individualized Perioperative Open-lung Ventilatory Strategy (iPROVE) is the first multicenter, randomized, and controlled trial to investigate whether an individualized perioperative approach prevents postoperative pulmonary complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered on 5 June 2014 with identification no. NCT02158923 .