4.6 Article

Positive End-expiratory Pressure Alone Minimizes Atelectasis Formation in Nonabdominal Surgery

期刊

ANESTHESIOLOGY
卷 128, 期 6, 页码 1117-1124

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002134

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Various methods for protective ventilation are increasingly being recommended for patients undergoing general anesthesia. However, the importance of each individual component is still unclear. In particular, the perioperative use of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) remains controversial. The authors tested the hypothesis that PEEP alone would be sufficient to limit atelectasis formation during nonabdominal surgery. Methods: This was a randomized controlled evaluator-blinded study. Twenty-four healthy patients undergoing general anesthesia were randomized to receive either mechanical ventilation with PEEP 7 or 9 cm H2O depending on body mass index (n = 12) or zero PEEP (n =12). No recruitment maneuvers were used. Hie primary outcome was atelectasis area as studied by computed tomography in a transverse scan near the diaphragm, at the end of surgery, before emergence. Oxygenation was evaluated by measuring blood gases and calculating the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to inspired oxygen fraction (Pao(2)/Fio(2) ratio). Results: At the end of surgery, the median (range) atelectasis area, expressed as percentage of the total lung area, was 1.8 (0.3 to 9.9) in the PEEP group and 4.6 (1.0 to 10.2) in the zero PEEP group. Tire difference in medians was 2.8% (95% CI, 1.7 to 5.7%; A = 0.002). Oxygenation and carbon dioxide elimination were maintained in the PEEP group, but both deteriorated in the zero PEEP group. Conclusions: During nonabdominal surgery, adequate PEEP is sufficient to minimize atelectasis in healthy lungs and thereby maintain oxygenation. Titus, routine recruitment maneuvers seem unnecessary, and the authors suggest that they should only be utilized when clearly indicated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据