Esophageal Pressure Versus Gas Exchange to Set PEEP During Intraoperative Ventilation

Gianmaria Cammarota, Gianluigi Lauro, Ilaria Sguazzotti, Iolanda Mariano, Raffaella Perucca, Antonio Messina, Marta Zanoni, Eugenio Garofalo, Andrea Bruni, Francesco Della Corte, Paolo Navalesi, Elena Bignami, Rosanna Vaschetto, Francesco Mojoli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position affect respiratory system mechanics and oxygenation during elective pelvic robotic surgery. The primary aim of this randomized pilot study was to compare the effects of a conventional low tidal volume ventilation with PEEP guided by gas exchange (VGas-guided) versus low tidal volume ventilation tailoring PEEP according to esophageal pressure (VPes-guided) on oxygenation and respiratory mechanics during elective pelvic robotic surgery. METHODS: This study was conducted in a single-center tertiary hospital between September 2017 and January 2019. Forty-nine adult patients scheduled for elective pelvic robotic surgery were screened; 28 subjects completed the full analysis. Exclusion criteria were American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status ≥ 3, contraindications to nasogastric catheter placement, and pregnancy. After dedicated naso/orogastric catheter insertion, subjects were randomly assigned to VGas-guided ([Formula: see text] and PEEP set to achieve [Formula: see text] > 94%) or VPes-guided (PEEP tailored to equalize end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure). Oxygenation ([Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text]) was evaluated (1) at randomization, after pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg application; (2) at 60 min; (3) at 120 min following randomization; and (4) at end of surgery. Respiratory mechanics were assessed during the duration of the study. RESULTS: Compared to VGas-guided, oxygenation was higher with VPes-guided at 60 min (388 ± 90 vs 308 ± 95 mm Hg, P = .02), at 120 min after randomization (400 ± 90 vs 308 ± 81 mm Hg, P = .008), and at the end of surgery (402 ± 95 vs 312 ± 95 mm Hg, P = .009). Respiratory system elastance was lower with VPes-guided compared to VGas-guided at 20 min (24.2 ± 7.3 vs 33.4 ± 10.7 cm H2O/L, P = .001) and 60 min (24.1 ± 5.4 vs 31.9 ± 8.5 cm H2O/L, P = .006) from randomization. CONCLUSIONS: Oxygenation and respiratory system mechanics were improved when applying a ventilatory strategy tailoring PEEP to equalize expiratory transpulmonary pressure in subjects undergoing pelvic robotic surgery compared to a VGas-guided approach. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT03153592).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)625-635
Number of pages11
JournalRespiratory Care
Volume65
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 1 2020

Keywords

  • laparoscopy
  • pneumoperitoneum
  • positive pressure respiration
  • respiratory mechanics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Esophageal Pressure Versus Gas Exchange to Set PEEP During Intraoperative Ventilation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Cammarota, G., Lauro, G., Sguazzotti, I., Mariano, I., Perucca, R., Messina, A., Zanoni, M., Garofalo, E., Bruni, A., Della Corte, F., Navalesi, P., Bignami, E., Vaschetto, R., & Mojoli, F. (2020). Esophageal Pressure Versus Gas Exchange to Set PEEP During Intraoperative Ventilation. Respiratory Care, 65(5), 625-635. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.07238