2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of a positive end-expiratory pressure strategy on oxygenation, respiratory compliance, and hemodynamics during laparoscopic surgery in non-obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during laparoscopic surgery may increase oxygenation and respiratory compliance. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the impact of different intraoperative PEEP strategies on arterial oxygenation, compliance, and hemodynamics during laparoscopic surgery in non-obese patients.

          Methods

          We searched RCTs in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from January 2012 to April 2022 comparing the different intraoperative PEEP (Low PEEP (LPEEP): 0–4 mbar; Moderate PEEP (MPEEP): 5–8 mbar; high PEEP (HPEEP): >8 mbar; individualized PEEP - iPEEP) on arterial oxygenation, respiratory compliance (Cdyn), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR). We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and predictive intervals (PI) using random-effects models. The Cochrane Bias Risk Assessment Tool was applied.

          Results

          21 RCTs (n = 1554) met the inclusion criteria. HPEEP vs. LPEEP increased PaO 2 (+ 29.38 [16.20; 42.56] mmHg, p < 0.0001) or PaO 2/FiO 2 (+ 36.7 [+ 2.23; +71.70] mmHg, p = 0.04). HPEEP vs. MPEEP increased PaO 2 (+ 22.00 [+ 1.11; +42.88] mmHg, p = 0.04) or PaO 2/FiO 2 (+ 42.7 [+ 2.74; +82.67] mmHg, p = 0.04). iPEEP vs. MPEEP increased PaO 2/FiO 2 (+ 115.2 [+ 87.21; +143.20] mmHg, p < 0.001). MPEEP vs. LPEP, and HPEEP vs. MPEEP increased PaO 2 or PaO 2/FiO 2 significantly with different heterogeneity. HPEEP vs. LPEEP increased Cdyn (+ 7.87 [+ 1.49; +14.25] ml/mbar, p = 0.02). MPEEP vs. LPEEP, and HPEEP vs. MPEEP did not impact Cdyn (p = 0.14 and 0.38, respectively). iPEEP vs. LPEEP decreased driving pressure (-4.13 [-2.63; -5.63] mbar, p < 0.001). No significant differences in MAP or HR were found between any subgroups.

          Conclusion

          HPEEP and iPEEP during PNP in non-obese patients could promote oxygenation and increase Cdyn without clinically significant changes in MAP and HR. MPEEP could be insufficient to increase respiratory compliance and improve oxygenation. LPEEP may lead to decreased respiratory compliance and worsened oxygenation.

          Prospero registration

          CRD42022362379; registered October 09, 2022.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-023-02337-0.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome.

              Mechanical-ventilation strategies that use lower end-inspiratory (plateau) airway pressures, lower tidal volumes (VT), and higher positive end-expiratory pressures (PEEPs) can improve survival in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the relative importance of each of these components is uncertain. Because respiratory-system compliance (CRS) is strongly related to the volume of aerated remaining functional lung during disease (termed functional lung size), we hypothesized that driving pressure (ΔP=VT/CRS), in which VT is intrinsically normalized to functional lung size (instead of predicted lung size in healthy persons), would be an index more strongly associated with survival than VT or PEEP in patients who are not actively breathing.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                dr.intensivist@gmail.com
                Journal
                BMC Anesthesiol
                BMC Anesthesiol
                BMC Anesthesiology
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2253
                11 November 2023
                11 November 2023
                2023
                : 23
                : 371
                Affiliations
                [1 ]National Research Oncology Center, Astana, Kazakhstan
                [2 ]Karaganda Medical University, ( https://ror.org/024cz2s53) Karaganda, Kazakhstan
                [3 ]Multidisciplinary hospitals named after Professor H.J.Makazhanov, Karaganda, Kazakhstan
                [4 ]Astana Medical University, ( https://ror.org/038mavt60) Astana, Kazakhstan
                [5 ]Kazakh-Russian Medical University, Almaty, Kazakhstan
                [6 ]GRID grid.448878.f, ISNI 0000 0001 2288 8774, Pulmonology Department, , Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University, ; 8/2, Trubetskaya str. 119991, Moscow, Russia
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7841-1801
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5992-0336
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2409-5644
                http://orcid.org/0009-0003-4111-5517
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2405-4447
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2556-5123
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3400-9823
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5804-8643
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1484-092X
                Article
                2337
                10.1186/s12871-023-02337-0
                10638810
                37950169
                c60394b8-6fdd-4951-aed7-5df3be695b53
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 15 May 2023
                : 4 November 2023
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                positive end-expiratory pressure,peep,laparoscopic surgery,lung protective ventilation,compliance,oxygenation,non-obese,pneumoperitoneum,meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article