Kim Seung Hyun, Na Sungwon, Lee Woo Kyung, Choi Hyunwoo, Kim Jeongmin
Department of anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, anaesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, South Korea.
BMC Anesthesiol. 2018 Apr 2;18(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12871-018-0495-7.
The benefits of lung-protective ventilation (LPV) with a low tidal volume (6 mL/kg of ideal body weight [IBW]), limited plateau pressure (< 28-30 cm HO), and appropriate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome have become apparent and it is now widely adopted in intensive care units. Recently evidence for LPV in general anaesthesia has been accumulated, but it is not yet generally applied by anaesthesiologists in the operating room.
This study investigated the perception about intraoperative LPV among 82 anaesthesiologists through a questionnaire survey and identified the differences in ventilator settings according to recognition of lung-protective ventilation. Furthermore, we investigated the changes in the trend for using this form of ventilation during general anaesthesia in the past 10 years.
Anaesthesiologists who had received training in LPV were more knowledgeable about this approach. Anaesthesiologists with knowledge of the concept behind LPV strategies applied a lower tidal volume (median (IQR [range]), 8.2 (8.0-9.2 [7.1-10.3]) vs. 9.2 (9.1-10.1 [7.6-10.1]) mL/kg; p = 0.033) and used PEEP more frequently (69/72 [95.8%] vs. 5/8 [62.5%]; p = 0.012; odds ratio, 13.8 [2.19-86.9]) for laparoscopic surgery than did those without such knowledge. Anaesthesiologists who were able to answer a question related to LPV correctly (respondents who chose 'height' to a multiple choice question asking what variables should be considered most important in the initial setting of tidal volume) applied a lower tidal volume in cases of laparoscopic surgery and obese patients. There was an increase in the number of patients receiving LPV (V < 10 mL/kgIBW and PEEP ≥5 cm HO) between 2004 and 2014 (0/818 [0.0%] vs. 280/818 [34.2%]; p < 0.001).
Our study suggests that the knowledge of LPV is directly related to its implementation, and can explain the increase in LPV use in general anaesthesia. Further studies should assess the impact of using intraoperative LPV on clinical outcomes and should determine the efficacy of education on intraoperative LPV implementation.
对于急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者,采用低潮气量(6 ml/kg理想体重[IBW])、限制平台压(<28 - 30 cm H₂O)和适当呼气末正压(PEEP)的肺保护性通气(LPV)的益处已很明显,目前在重症监护病房已广泛采用。最近,关于全身麻醉中LPV的证据不断积累,但麻醉医生在手术室中尚未普遍应用。
本研究通过问卷调查调查了82名麻醉医生对术中LPV的认知,并根据对肺保护性通气的认识确定了通气设置的差异。此外,我们调查了过去10年全身麻醉期间使用这种通气方式的趋势变化。
接受过LPV培训的麻醉医生对这种方法了解更多。了解LPV策略背后概念的麻醉医生在腹腔镜手术中采用较低的潮气量(中位数(IQR[范围]),8.2(8.0 - 9.2[7.1 - 10.3])vs. 9.2(9.1 - 10.1[7.6 - 10.1])ml/kg;p = 0.033),并且比不了解的麻醉医生更频繁地使用PEEP(69/72[95.8%] vs. 5/8[62.5%];p = 0.012;比值比,13.8[2.19 - 86.9])。能够正确回答与LPV相关问题的麻醉医生(在一个多项选择题中选择“身高”作为在潮气量初始设置中应考虑的最重要变量的受访者)在腹腔镜手术和肥胖患者中采用较低的潮气量。2004年至2014年期间接受LPV(V < 10 ml/kg IBW且PEEP≥5 cm H₂O)的患者数量有所增加(0/818[0.0%] vs. 280/818[34.2%];p < 0.001)。
我们的研究表明,对LPV的了解与其实施直接相关,并且可以解释全身麻醉中LPV使用的增加。进一步的研究应评估术中使用LPV对临床结果的影响,并应确定关于术中LPV实施的教育效果。