Guay Joanne, Ochroch Edward A, Kopp Sandra
Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jul 9;7(7):CD011151. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011151.pub3.
Since the 2000s, there has been a trend towards decreasing tidal volumes for positive pressure ventilation during surgery. This an update of a review first published in 2015, trying to determine if lower tidal volumes are beneficial or harmful for patients.
To assess the benefit of intraoperative use of low tidal volume ventilation (less than 10 mL/kg of predicted body weight) compared with high tidal volumes (10 mL/kg or greater) to decrease postoperative complications in adults without acute lung injury.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (from 1946 to 19 May 2017), Embase (OvidSP) (from 1974 to 19 May 2017) and six trial registries. We screened the reference lists of all studies retained and of recent meta-analysis related to the topic during data extraction. We also screened conference proceedings of anaesthesiology societies, published in two major anaesthesiology journals. The search was rerun 3 January 2018.
We included all parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of low tidal volumes (defined as less than 10 mL/kg) on any of our selected outcomes in adults undergoing any type of surgery. We did not retain studies with participants requiring one-lung ventilation.
Two authors independently assessed the quality of the retained studies with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed data with both fixed-effect (I statistic less than 25%) or random-effects (I statistic greater than 25%) models based on the degree of heterogeneity. When there was an effect, we calculated a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) using the odds ratio. When there was no effect, we calculated the optimum information size.
We included seven new RCTs (536 participants) in the update.In total, we included 19 studies in the review (776 participants in the low tidal volume group and 772 in the high volume group). There are four studies awaiting classification and three are ongoing. All included studies were at some risk of bias. Participants were scheduled for abdominal surgery, heart surgery, pulmonary thromboendarterectomy, spinal surgery and knee surgery. Low tidal volumes used in the studies varied from 6 mL/kg to 8.1 mL/kg while high tidal volumes varied from 10 mL/kg to 12 mL/kg.Based on 12 studies including 1207 participants, the effects of low volume ventilation on 0- to 30-day mortality were uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.53; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). Based on seven studies including 778 participants, lower tidal volumes probably reduced postoperative pneumonia (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.82; I = 0%; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB 24, 95% CI 16 to 160), and it probably reduced the need for non-invasive postoperative ventilatory support based on three studies including 506 participants (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.64; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB 13, 95% CI 11 to 24). Based on 11 studies including 957 participants, low tidal volumes during surgery probably decreased the need for postoperative invasive ventilatory support (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.77; I = 0%; NNTB 39, 95% CI 30 to 166; moderate-quality evidence). Based on five studies including 898 participants, there may be little or no difference in the intensive care unit length of stay (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.10; I = 33%; low-quality evidence). Based on 14 studies including 1297 participants, low tidal volumes may have reduced hospital length of stay by about 0.8 days (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; I = 27%; low-quality evidence). Based on five studies including 708 participants, the effects of low volume ventilation on barotrauma (pneumothorax) were uncertain (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.99; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence that low tidal volumes (defined as less than 10 mL/kg) decreases pneumonia and the need for postoperative ventilatory support (invasive and non-invasive). We found no difference in the risk of barotrauma (pneumothorax), but the number of participants included does not allow us to make definitive statement on this. The four studies in 'Studies awaiting classification' may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.
自21世纪以来,手术期间正压通气的潮气量有下降趋势。这是对2015年首次发表的一篇综述的更新,旨在确定较低潮气量对患者是有益还是有害。
评估术中使用低潮气量通气(小于预测体重的10 mL/kg)与高潮气量(10 mL/kg或更高)相比,对无急性肺损伤的成年人减少术后并发症的益处。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL 2017年第5期)、MEDLINE(OvidSP)(1946年至2017年5月19日)、Embase(OvidSP)(1974年至2017年5月19日)以及六个试验注册库。在数据提取过程中,我们筛选了所有纳入研究以及近期与该主题相关的荟萃分析的参考文献列表。我们还筛选了发表在两种主要麻醉学杂志上的麻醉学学会会议论文集。检索于2018年1月3日重新进行。
我们纳入了所有平行随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验评估了低潮气量(定义为小于10 mL/kg)对接受任何类型手术的成年人的任何选定结局的影响。我们未纳入需要单肺通气的参与者的研究。
两位作者使用Cochrane“偏倚风险”工具独立评估纳入研究的质量。我们根据异质性程度,使用固定效应模型(I统计量小于25%)或随机效应模型(I统计量大于25%)分析数据。当有效果时,我们使用比值比计算额外有益结局的需治疗人数(NNTB)。当没有效果时,我们计算最佳信息规模。
在本次更新中,我们纳入了七项新的RCT(536名参与者)。综述中我们总共纳入了19项研究(低潮气量组776名参与者,高潮气量组772名参与者)。有四项研究等待分类,三项正在进行中。所有纳入研究都存在一定程度的偏倚风险。参与者计划接受腹部手术、心脏手术、肺动脉血栓内膜切除术、脊柱手术和膝关节手术。研究中使用的低潮气量从6 mL/kg到8.1 mL/kg不等,而高潮气量从10 mL/kg到12 mL/kg不等。基于12项包括1207名参与者的研究,低潮气量通气对0至30天死亡率的影响尚不确定(风险比(RR)0.80,95%置信区间(CI)0.42至1.53;I = 0%;低质量证据)。基于七项包括778名参与者的研究,较低潮气量可能降低术后肺炎(RR 0.45,95% CI 0.25至0.82;I = 0%;中等质量证据;NNTB 24,95% CI 16至160);基于三项包括506名参与者的研究,较低潮气量可能减少术后无创通气支持的需求(RR 0.31,95% CI 0.15至0.64;中等质量证据;NNTB 13,95% CI 11至24)。基于11项包括957名参与者的研究,手术期间低潮气量可能降低术后有创通气支持的需求(RR 0.33,95% CI 0.14至0.77;I = 0%;NNTB 39,95% CI 30至166;中等质量证据)。基于五项包括898名参与者的研究,重症监护病房住院时间可能几乎没有差异(标准化均数差(SMD)-0.06,95% CI -0.22至0.10;I = 33%;低质量证据)。基于14项包括1297名参与者的研究,低潮气量可能使住院时间缩短约0.8天(SMD -0.15,95% CI -0.29至0.00;I = 27%;低质量证据)。基于五项包括708名参与者的研究,低潮气量通气对气压伤(气胸)的影响尚不确定(RR 1.77,95% CI 0.52至5.99;I = 0%;极低质量证据)。
我们发现中等质量证据表明,低潮气量(定义为小于10 mL/kg)可降低肺炎及术后通气支持(有创和无创)的需求。我们发现气压伤(气胸)风险没有差异,但纳入的参与者数量不允许我们就此做出明确声明。“等待分类的研究”中的四项研究一旦评估,可能会改变本综述的结论。