Skip to main content

Low tidal volume ventilation for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a secondary analysis of a randomised clinical trial

Abstract

Background

We recently reported the results for a large randomized controlled trial of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) versus conventional tidal volume (CTVV) during major surgery when positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) was equal between groups. We found no difference in postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in patients who received LTVV. However, in the subgroup of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, LTVV was associated with a numerically lower rate of PPCs after surgery. We aimed to further assess the relationship between LTVV versus CTVV during laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

We conducted a post-hoc analysis of this pre-specified subgroup. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with an applied PEEP of 5 cmH2O and either LTVV (6 mL/kg predicted body weight [PBW]) or CTVV (10 mL/kg PBW). The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite of PPCs within seven days.

Results

Three hundred twenty-eight patients (27.2%) underwent laparoscopic surgeries, with 158 (48.2%) randomised to LTVV. Fifty two of 157 patients (33.1%) assigned to LTVV and 72 of 169 (42.6%) assigned to conventional tidal volume developed PPCs within 7 days (unadjusted absolute difference, − 9.48 [95% CI, − 19.86 to 1.05]; p = 0.076). After adjusting for pre-specified confounders, the LTVV group had a lower incidence of the primary outcome than patients receiving CTVV (adjusted absolute difference, − 10.36 [95% CI, − 20.52 to − 0.20]; p = 0.046).

Conclusion

In this post-hoc analysis of a large, randomised trial of LTVV we found that during laparoscopic surgeries, LTVV was associated with a significantly reduced PPCs compared to CTVV when PEEP was applied equally between both groups.

Trial registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry no: 12614000790640.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

There is growing interest in the role of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) during major surgery for the prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. However, major trials of LTVV in abdominal surgery have focused on patients undergoing major open abdominal surgery or a mixture of open and laparoscopic abdominal surgeries [1, 2]. The inclusion of such heterogeneous groups may be a problem. Laparoscopic abdominal surgery may carry unique and relevant features. For example, the physiological effects of the pneumoperitoneum, differences in patient position during surgery, postoperative pain and a lower rate of complications may influence the relationship between LTVV and PPCs in this group and the ability to detect PPCs [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Regrettably, to date, studies of intraoperative LTVV, during laparoscopic surgery, have been limited in size, focused specifically on physiological outcomes or have been confined to specific operative procedures. Moreover, they have also involved multiple ventilatory interventions with variable positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) settings and recruitment manoeuvres [21,22,23,24].

We recently reported the results for a large randomized controlled trial of LTVV versus conventional tidal volume during major surgery when PEEP was equal between groups. We found no difference in PPCs in patients who received LTVV, but in a subgroup of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery LTVV was associated with a numerically lower rate of PPCs within 7 days [1]. It is unclear whether these findings indicate genuine effect of LTVV or are accounted for by chance baseline imbalances or other confounding factors that may affect this outcome.

Therefore, we conducted a post-hoc analysis using data from patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery who were included in the original trial [1]. We hypothesised that, after adjusting for confounding factors, intraoperative LTVV would be associated with a significantly reduced incidence of PPCs within 7 days of surgery.

Materials and methods

Study design

As part of an investigator-initiated, assessor-blinded, single centre, randomised clinical trial, we conducted a post-hoc analysis of the pre-specified subgroup of patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery. The protocol, statistical analysis plan and primary trial have been published [25].

Ethics

The local ethics committee approved the study (HREC approval number HREC/14/Austin260). Written informed consent was obtained from all participating patients. This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The primary trial was registered with the ANZCA clinical trials network (ACTRN12614000790640).

Patients

Patients were included in the primary trial if they were older than 40, scheduled to have major surgery of expected duration > 2 hours and anticipated to receive invasive arterial pressure monitoring as part of their routine care. Patients were excluded if they were pregnant; scheduled to have cardiac, thoracic or intracranial neurological surgery; or if they had been previously enrolled in the trial. The patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery included in this analysis comprise a pre-specified subgroup defined prior to randomisation [1, 25].

Intervention

All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with an applied PEEP of 5 cmH2O. Immediately following randomisation, patients were assigned to receive either LTVV (6 mL/kg predicted body weight [PBW]) or conventional tidal volume ventilation (CTVV) (10 mL/kg PBW). PBW was calculated as follows:

$$\textrm{Male}\ \textrm{PBW}=50+0.91\ast \left(\textrm{height}\ \left[\textrm{cm}\right]-152.4\right)$$
$$\textrm{Female}\ \textrm{PBW}=45.5+0.91\ast \left(\textrm{height}\ \left[\textrm{cm}\right]-152.4\right)$$

The tidal volume and PEEP were maintained for the duration of the surgical procedure. All cases were performed under the supervision or direct care of a specialist anaesthetist. Participants underwent intravenous induction, neuromuscular blockade and endotracheal intubation, and a volatile agent was used to maintain anaesthesia. Apart from tidal volume and PEEP, other aspects of clinical care, including PaCO2 and oxygenation targets (SpO2 and PaO2), were administered at the discretion of the treating anaesthetist. In addition, the inspired fraction of oxygen (FiO2), respiratory rate, anaesthesia technique, fluid management, use of vasoactive drugs, analgesia plan, prophylactic antibiotics and anti-emetic agents were also administered at the discretion of the treating anaesthetist.

Data collection

We used a standardised case report form for data collection. Intraoperatively, we collected all ventilatory data and vital signs prospectively as the lowest and/or highest values during the procedure. The research staff collected all data directly from the clinical chart source data. Until postoperative day seven or hospital discharge (whichever came first), the trial research team assessed all patients daily. Research staff blinded to the intraoperative intervention collected information regarding the clinical outcomes. After the first 7 days (if the patient was still in hospital), we retrieved additional data from the electronic medical record.

Outcomes

As previously reported in our primary trial, the primary outcome for this analysis was the incidence of a composite of PPCs, defined as present if any component developed within the first 7 days after surgery. These complications included pneumonia, bronchospasm, atelectasis, pulmonary congestion, respiratory failure, pleural effusion or pneumothorax, or unplanned requirement for postoperative mechanical ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure or non-invasive or invasive ventilation (see eTable 1 in Online Supplement). The diagnoses of atelectasis, pleural effusion and pneumothorax were based on chest x-rays and adjudicated by assessors blinded to study group allocation [1].

The secondary outcomes were 1) incidence of PPCs during hospital stay, 2) incidence of pulmonary embolism, 3) incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, 4) incidence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome, 5) incidence of sepsis, 6) incidence of acute kidney injury, 7) incidence of wound infection (superficial or deep), 8) rate of intraoperative need for vasopressor, 9) incidence of unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 10) rate of need for rapid response team call, 11) length of stay in ICU, 12) hospital length of stay and 13) incidence of in-hospital mortality (see eTable 2 in Online Supplement for all definitions). These secondary outcomes were also derived from our previously reported primary trial [1].

Statistical analysis

The original statistical analysis plan for the primary trial is reported elsewhere; while this analysis was not pre-planned, it was conducted in accordance with the original analysis plan. Categorical variables are reported as counts and percentages and compared with Fisher exact tests; continuous variables are reported as median (interquartile range [IQR]) and compared with Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Patients were analysed according to the group in which they were randomised in the original trial, and the analysis dataset included all patients who were randomised and received general anaesthesia for eligible surgery. The quantity of missing data for the primary outcome was small; therefore, only a complete case analysis was conducted, and no assumption for missing data was made.

The effect of the intervention on the primary outcome is reported as numbers and percentages with risk differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), calculated using a generalised linear model with binomial distribution and an identity link function. All other binary outcomes were analysed identically. The effect of the intervention on the length of ICU stay and hospital stay was estimated with generalised linear models considering a Gaussian distribution.

For all outcomes, multivariable analyses were performed using the models described above and incorporating adjustments for independent covariates of age, sex, baseline oxygen saturation (measured by pulse oximetry), body mass index and the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia (ARISCAT) score [26]. All covariates were pre-specified based on their known associations with the outcome and according to the original plan. This approach is consistent with previous studies [26, 27]. For the final models, missing data in covariates were imputed by the median. As a sensitivity analysis, a multiple imputation was used to impute missing data in outcomes and covariates (described in the Additional Methods in Online Supplement).

All continuous variables were standardised to improve convergence—the results represent the change in the outcome according to the increase in one standard deviation of the continuous predictor. All analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity, and the confidence intervals (CIs) should not be used to infer definite differences between the groups. The rate of missing data is shown in eTable 3 in the Online Supplement. A two-sided p value < 0.05 was considered evidence of statistical significance. All analyses were performed using R software, version 4.0.2 (R Core Team).

Results

Patients

From February 2015 to February 2019, 1236 patients were randomised. Of these, 627 were assigned randomly to receive LTVV and 609 patients to receive CTVV. In 30 patients, either the surgery did not proceed, or the anaesthetist declined to participate in the trial (i.e., declined trial protocol ventilation or no arterial line was planned to be placed). These 30 patients were excluded, leaving data from 1206 patients in the primary analysis. A total of 328 patients (27.2%) underwent laparoscopic surgeries, with 158 (48.2%) randomised to LTVV. Data related to the primary outcome were missing for two patients (see eFigure 1 in Online Supplement).

Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of the patients are shown in Table 1. The median (IQR) age was 63 (55–71) years, 60.4% were male, and the median (IQR) ARISCAT was 32 (25–31). Within the cohort, 65.8% were classified as at moderate risk for PPCs, and 44.3% were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) 3. The most common comorbidities were hypertension and obesity, respectively. All characteristics were well balanced between the randomisation groups (Table 1).

Table 1 Baseline patient characteristics

Intraoperative procedures

Ventilatory and surgical variables are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Ventilatory and surgical variables in the included patients

Patients allocated to the LTVV group had lower absolute (400 [350–450] vs. 610 [510–700] mL; absolute difference, − 202.0 [95% CI, − 225.3 to − 178.8]; p <  0.001) and adjusted tidal volume (6.0 [6.0–6.2] vs. 10.0 [9.9–10.1] mL/kg PBW; absolute difference, − 3.4 [95% CI, − 3.6 to − 3.1]; p <  0.001).

PEEP was similar between the groups In the LTVV group, peak inspiratory pressure was lower (absolute difference, − 2.5 cmH2O [95% CI, − 3.9 to − 1.2]; p <  0.001) and respiratory rate was higher (absolute difference, 4.6 breaths/minute [95% CI, 3.9 to 5.3]; p <  0.001). SpO2 and FiO2 were similar between the groups, and etCO2 was higher in the LTVV group (absolute difference, 4.2 mmHg [95% CI, 2.9 to 5.5]; p <  0.001).

After induction, pH was lower and PaCO2 was higher in the LTVV group. Except for bicarbonate (where the difference was not clinically significant), all other laboratory tests were similar between the groups, including the PaO2 (see Table 2). The differences in the arterial blood gas prior to closure were similar to those found after induction. The duration of surgery was similar between the groups, as was the use of regional anaesthesia.

Primary outcome

A total of 52 of 157 patients (33.1%) assigned to LTVV and 72 of 169 (42.6%) assigned to conventional tidal volume developed PPCs within 7 days (unadjusted absolute difference, − 9.48 [95% CI, − 19.86 to 1.05]; p = 0.076) (see Table 3). After adjusting for pre-specified confounders, patients in the LTVV group had a lower incidence of the primary outcome than patients in the conventional group (adjusted absolute difference, − 10.36 [95% CI, − 20.52 to − 0.20]; p = 0.046).

Table 3 Primary and secondary outcomes in the included patients

A total of 53 of 157 patients (33.8%) assigned to LTVV and 75 of 167 (44.9%) assigned to conventional tidal volume developed PPCs during their hospital stay (unadjusted absolute difference, − 11.15 [95% CI, − 21.60 to − 0.52]; p = 0.039; adjusted absolute difference, − 12.13 [95% CI, − 22.35 to − 1.91]; p = 0.020) (see Table 3). All other secondary outcomes were similar for both groups before and after adjustment for confounders.

Sensitivity analysis

The results obtained after multiple imputations for missing data in outcomes and covariates are shown in eTable 4 in v Online Supplement. After multiple imputations and adjustment for confounders, patients in the LTVV group had a lower incidence of the primary outcome (adjusted absolute difference, − 10.58 [95% CI, − 20.83 to − 0.32]; p = 0.043) and PPCs during hospital stay (adjusted absolute difference, − 11.70 [95% CI, − 21.87 to − 1.53]; p = 0.024).

Discussion

Key findings

In this post-hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial of adult patients undergoing major laparoscopic surgery, intraoperative mechanical ventilation with low tidal volumes was associated with a significant reduction in post-operative pulmonary complications compared with conventional tidal volume ventilation.

Relationship to previous studies

In our recent randomised trial of patients undergoing major surgery, we found no overall benefit of LTVV relative to conventional tidal volume ventilation when PEEP was equalised between groups [1]. The results of this post-hoc analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery suggest that this subgroup may represent a unique subset of patients that might benefits specifically from a low tidal volume strategy. Such differences may reflect the physiological effects of different operative interventions on respiratory function, including the use of pneumoperitoneum and its associated raised intraabdominal pressure, duration of surgery, variations in patient position during surgery and the magnitude of postoperative pain [15,16,17]. Further suggestion of a difference in patient–ventilator interaction during laparoscopic surgery was apparent in another large randomised controlled trial that focused on the effect of a high PEEP versus a low PEEP strategy when combined with LTVV in obese patients during surgery [28]. This study did not demonstrate a difference in PPCs in a combined population of open and laparoscopic abdominal surgery patients. However, in the subgroup of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery, a high PEEP strategy was associated with a numerically lower rate of PPCs within 7 days [28]. A subsequent meta-analysis by Campos also suggested laparoscopic patients represented a unique group which may benefit from a high PEEP strategy (Ref Campos et al).

Previous studies of the effect of LTVV during laparoscopic surgery have been small, underpowered, and focused on physiological rather than clinical outcomes; further, they have been often confined to highly specific operative procedures [21,22,23,24]. Despite these limitations, such studies supported the biological plausibility of the potential benefits of a ventilation strategy that incorporates a low tidal volume in patients receiving laparoscopic abdominal surgery. These benefits included improved gas exchange and respiratory mechanics and a reduction in atelectasis [21,22,23,24].

Our results could be explained by the physiological effects of the pneumoperitoneum on transpulmonary pressure (particularly in the context of moderate PEEP as in our trial). When only moderate PEEP is applied to patients with raised intrabdominal pressure, prevailing conditions are established which may promote suboptimal recruitment and reduced functional residual capacity. When a higher tidal volume is then applied, it is plausible that patients would be subjected to higher lung strain (defined as a ratio of tidal volume to end expiratory lung volume). Increased lung strain (and its surrogate driving pressure) has been identified as an important factor in the pathogenesis of ventilator lung injury [29,30,31,32].

Strengths and limitations

Our study is the largest investigation of LTVV during laparoscopic surgery. It analysed a pre-defined cohort of significance. It used an outcome that as assessed by observers blinded to the intervention. It adjusted findings in the laparoscopic group for any imbalances in relevant confounders. Moreover, it applied imputation analysis to test the robustness of its finding. Finally, it was the first to assess the effect of LTVV in isolation. In this regard, previous studies of patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries have focused commonly on LTVV combined with differences in PEEP and recruitment manoeuvres, which have been proposed to oppose the physiological effects of the pneumoperitoneum [19, 20, 24]. Our results suggest benefits when LTVV is applied in isolation.

This study has several limitations. Importantly, this was a post-hoc analysis of a single centre study; therefore, it is subject to all the limitations intrinsic to such a study type. However, this study did include a diverse range of patients and laparoscopic procedures. In addition, blinding of clinical staff was not possible primarily due to the nature of the intervention. However, scoring of the clinical outcomes was determined by blinded observers. Unfortunately, due to limitations of the ventilators used in our centre at the time of our primary trial we were unable to measure plateau pressure and estimate driving pressure (as a surrogate of lung strain) during surgery. Notably, the respiratory management after the intraoperative intervention period was not protocolised. However, there are no current consensus guidelines to guide such management. Therefore, we designed this trial with a pragmatic approach. Furthermore, the use of the primary composite outcome implies equivalence of each of its components and the severity of the complication was not qualified in the results. However, this is consistent with the approach used in our overarching trial. This is also congruous with other major trials of intraoperative ventilation and PPCs [1, 2, 28, 33]. Consequently, such complications were included regardless of severity. Nevertheless, we would suggest that even minor PPCs would be considered important. Finally, chest x-rays were performed in this trial only when clinically indicated (as determined by the treating staff) and were not systematically evaluated. However, this limitation would not have been a likely source of bias. Finally, we did not record the time from surgery to the onset of a postoperative pulmonary complication. However, would note this time frame is consistent with previously suggested definitions [34].

In conclusion, this post-hoc analysis of a large, randomised trial of LTVV during major laparoscopic found that LTVV was associated with a significantly reduced risk of PPCs compared to conventional tidal volume ventilation, when PEEP was applied equally between both groups. Given these results, further evaluation of the ideal ventilation strategy during laparoscopic surgery, is warranted.

Availability of data and materials

We accept participation in a data sharing arrangement on reasonable request where specifically relevant to the results of this study. These can be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiologists

ABG:

Arterial blood gas

ARISCAT:

Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia

HCO3 :

Bicarbonate

BMI:

Body mass index

COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

CI:

Confidence interval

etCO2 :

End-tidal carbon dioxide

FiO2 :

Inspired fraction of oxygen

ICU:

Intensive care unit

IQR:

Interquartile range

IMV:

Invasive mechanical ventilation

LTVV:

Low tidal volume ventilation

MET:

Medical emergency team

NIV:

Non-invasive ventilation

PaCO2 :

Partial pressure of carbon dioxide

PaO2 :

Partial pressure of oxygen

PEEP:

Positive end-expiratory pressure

PPCs:

Postoperative pulmonary complications

PBW:

Predicted body weight

SpO2 :

Pulse oximetry

TAP:

Transversus abdominis plane block

References

  1. Karalapillai D, Weinberg L, Peyton P, et al. Effect of intraoperative low tidal volume vs conventional tidal volume on postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing major surgery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(9):848–58. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12866 PMID: 32870298; PMCID: PMC7489812.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Futier E, Constantin JM, Paugam-Burtz C, et al. A trial of intraoperative low-tidal-volume ventilation in abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:428e37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Choi ES, Oh AY, In CB, Ryu JH, Jeon YT, Kim HG. Effects of recruitment manoeuvre on perioperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a randomised single-blinded trial. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0183311.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Chugh V, Tyagi A, Das S, Sethi AK. Intraoperative ventilation with lowered tidal volumes in patients of perforation peritonitis: effect on postoperative organ dysfunction and systemic inflammatory mediators. Vol Respiration. 2012;1138.

  5. Kuzkov VV, Rodionova LN, Ilyina YY, et al. Protective ventilation improves gas exchange, reduces incidence of atelectases, and affects metabolic response in major pancreatoduodenal surgery. Front Med (Lausanne). 2016;3:66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Severgnini P, Selmo G, Lanza C, et al. Protective me- chanical ventilation during general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery improves postoperative pulmonary function. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:1307e21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Treschan TA, Kaisers W, Schaefer MS, et al. Ventilation with low tidal volumes during upper abdominal surgery does not improve postoperative lung function. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:263e71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Weingarten TN, Whalen FX, Warner DO, et al. Comparison of two ventilatory strategies in elderly patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2010;104:16e22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Deng QW, Tan WC, Zhao BC, Wen SH, Shen JT, Xu M. Intraoperative ventilation strategies to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2020;124(3):324–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2019.10.024 Epub 2020 Jan 30. PMID: 32007240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Serpa Neto A, Hemmes SN, Barbas CS, et al. Protective versus conventional ventilation for surgery: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Anesthesiology. 2015;123:66e78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Miskovic A, Lumb AB. Postoperative pulmonary complications. Br J Anaesth. 2017;118(3):317–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aex002 PMID: 28186222.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open cholecystectomy in elderly patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(46):17626–34. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i46.17626 PMID: 25516678; PMCID: PMC4265625.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee CZ, Kao LT, Lin HC, Wei PL. Comparison of clinical out- come between laparoscopic and open right hemicolectomy: a nationwide study. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:250.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Bablekos GD, Michaelides SA, Analitis A, Charalabopoulos KA. Effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy on lung func- tion: a systematic review. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:17603–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gerges FJ, Kanazi GE, Jabbour-Khoury SI. Anesthesia for laparoscopy: a review. J Clin Anesth. 2006;18:67–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chumillas MS, Ponce JL, Delgado F, Viciano V. Pulmonary function and complications after laparoscopic cholecys- tectomy. Eur J Surg. 1998;164:433–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gunnarsson L, Lindberg P, Tokics L, et al. Lung function after open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scandinavica. 1995;39:302–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Karayiannakis AJ, Makri GG, Mantzioka A, et al. Postoperative pulmonary function after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Br J Anaesth. 1996;77:448–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cinnella G, Grasso S, Spadaro S, et al. Effects of recruitment maneuver and positive end-expiratory pressure on respi- ratory mechanics and transpulmonary pressure during laparoscopic surgery. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:114e22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Futier E, Constantin JM, Pelosi P, et al. Intraoperative recruitment maneuver reverses detrimental pneumoperitoneum-induced respiratory effects in healthy weight and obese patients undergoing laparos- copy. Anesthesiology. 2010;113:1310e9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu J, Meng Z, Lv R, Zhang Y, Wang G, Xie J. Effect of intraoperative lung- protective mechanical ventilation on pulmonary oxygenation function and postoperative pulmonary complications after laparoscopic radical gastrectomy. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2019;52(6):e8523.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Spinazzola G, Ferrone G, Cipriani F, Caputo CT, Rossi M, Conti G. Effects of two different ventilation strategies on respiratory mechanics during robotic-gynecological sur- gery. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2019;259:122e8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Park SJ, Kim BG, Oh AH, Han SH, Han HS, Ryu JH. Effects of intraoperative protective lung ventilation on post- operative pulmonary complications in patients with laparoscopic surgery: prospective, randomized and controlled trial. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:4598e606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nguyen TK, Nguyen VL, Nguyen TG, et al. Lung-protective mechanical ventilation for patients undergoing abdominal laparoscopic surgeries: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021;21(1):95. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-021-01318-5 PMID: 33784987; PMCID: PMC8008676.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Karalapillai D, Weinberg L, Peyton P, et al. Low tidal volume ventilation during anaesthesia for major surgery: protocol and statistical analysis plan. Crit Care Resusc. 2019;21(4):243–50 PMID: 31778630.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Canet J, Gallart L, Gomar C, et al. Prediction of postoperative pulmonary complications in a population-based surgical cohort. ANESTHESIOLOGY. 2010;113:1338–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Canet J, Hardman J, Sabaté S, et al. PERISCOPE study: predicting post-operative pulmonary complications in Europe. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28(6):459–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0b013e328344be2d PMID: 21544025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bluth T, Serpa Neto A, Schultz MJ, Pelosi P, Gama de Abreu M. Effect of intraoperative high positive end-expiratory pres- sure (PEEP) with recruitment maneuvers vs low PEEP on postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321:2292e305.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Campos NS, Bluth T, Hemmes SNT, REPEAT; investigators for the PROVHILO study; iPROVE study; PROBESE study investigators; PROVE Network, et al. Intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure and postoperative pulmonary complications: a patient-level meta-analysis of three randomised clinical trials. Br J Anaesth. 2022;128(6):1040–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2022.02.039 Epub 2022 Apr 15. PMID: 35431038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Protti A, Andreis DT, Monti M, et al. Lung stress and strain during mechanical ventilation: any difference between statics and dynamics? Crit Care Med. 2013;41(4):1046–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31827417a6 PMID: 23385096.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Amato MB, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(8):747–55. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1410639 PMID: 25693014.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Neto AS, Hemmes SN, Barbas CS, et al. Association between driving pressure and development of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for general anaesthesia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4(4):272–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(16)00057-6 Epub 2016 Mar 4. Erratum in: Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4(6):e34. PMID: 26947624.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hemmes SN, Gama de Abreu M, Pelosi P, Schultz MJ. High versus low positive end-expiratory pressure during gen- eral anaesthesia for open abdominal surgery (PROVHILO trial): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;384:495e503.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jammer I, Wickboldt N, Sander M, Smith A, Schultz MJ, Pelosi P, et al. Standards for definitions and use of outcome measures for clinical effectiveness research in perioperative medicine: European Perioperative Clinical Outcome (EPCO) definitions: a statement from the ESA-ESICM joint taskforce on perioperative outcome measures. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015;32(2):88–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We also acknowledge research nurses Sarah Baulch, BN, Gayle Claxton, BN, Sofia Sidiropoulos, BN, and Saskia Harris, BN, in the Department of Anaesthesia, Austin Hospital, Melbourne.

Ethics accordance

This study was undertaken in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki for research involving human participants.

Funding

The original trial was investigator-initiated research funded by Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists grant ANZAC16/008. Dr. Peyton reported receipt of personal fees from Maquet Critical Care outside of the submitted work. Dr. Wilson reported receipt of personal fees from Fisher Paykel outside of the submitted work. Dr. Serpa Neto reported receiving personal fees from Dräger outside of the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

DK: Primary author, study concept, recruitment, database creation, drafting of manuscript. LW: Study concept, recruitment, drafting of manuscript. ASN: Statistical analysis, drafting of manuscript. PP: Study concept, recruitment, drafting of manuscript. LE: Recruitment, drafting of manuscript. RH: Recruitment, drafting of manuscript. BP: Recruitment, drafting of manuscript. CT: Recruitment, drafting of manuscript. DS: Recruitment, drafting of manuscript. MO: Database creation, drafting of manuscript. PH: Database creation, drafting of manuscript. CO: Database creation, drafting of manuscript. JG: Database creation, drafting of manuscript. AW: Database creation. GL: Drafting of manuscript. AS: Drafting of manuscript. GE: Ethics submission, Study concept, drafting of manuscript. RB: study concept, drafting of manuscript, supervising author. DJ: Study concept, drafting of manuscript, supervising author. All authors reviewed the manuscript. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dharshi Karalapillai.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The local ethics committee approved the study (HREC approval number HREC/14/Austin260). Written informed consent was obtained from all participating patients. The trial was registered with the ANZCA clinical trials network (ACTRN12614000790640) on 24/07/2014.

URL:https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=366752&showHistory=true&isReview=true

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

We declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: 

Additional methods. eTable 1. Definition of the primary outcome. eTable 2. Definitions of the secondary outcomes. eTable 3. Rate of Missing Data. eTable 4. Primary and Secondary Outcomes in the Included Patients After Multiple Imputation. eFigure 1. Study Flowchart.

Rights and permissions

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karalapillai, D., Weinberg, L., Neto, A.S. et al. Low tidal volume ventilation for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a secondary analysis of a randomised clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol 23, 71 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-01998-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-01998-1

Keywords