Liu Hong-Jin, Lin Yong, Li Wang, Yang Hai, Kang Wen-Yue, Guo Pei-Lei, Guo Xiao-Hui, Cheng Ning-Ning, Tan Jie-Chao, He Yi-Na, Chen Si-Si, Mu Yan, Liu Xian-Wen, Zhang Hui, Chen Mei-Fang
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Xinquan Road 29, Fuzhou, Fujian, 350001, PR China.
Department of Anesthesiology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated with Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China.
BMC Anesthesiol. 2025 Jan 7;25(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s12871-024-02879-x.
Limited information is available regarding the application of lung-protective ventilation strategies during one-lung ventilation (OLV) across mainland China. A nationwide questionnaire survey was conducted to investigate this issue in current clinical practice.
The survey covered various aspects, including respondent demographics, the establishment and maintenance of OLV, intraoperative monitoring standards, and complications associated with OLV.
Five hundred forty-three valid responses were collected from all provinces in mainland China. Volume control ventilation mode, 4 to 6 mL per kilogram of predictive body weight, pure oxygen inspiration, and a low-level positive end-expiratory pressure ≤ 5 cm HO were the most popular ventilation parameters. The most common thresholds of intraoperative respiration monitoring were peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO) of 90-94%, end-tidal CO of 45 to 55 mm Hg, and an airway pressure of 30 to 34 cm HO. Recruitment maneuvers were traditionally performed by 94% of the respondents. Intraoperative hypoxemia and laryngeal injury were experienced by 75% and 51% of the respondents, respectively. The proportions of anesthesiologists who frequently experienced hypoxemia during OLV were 19%, 24%, and 7% for lung, cardiovascular, and esophageal surgeries, respectively. Up to 32% of respondents were reluctant to perform lung-protective ventilation strategies during OLV. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the volume-control ventilation mode and an SpO intervention threshold of < 85% were independent risk factors for hypoxemia during OLV in lung and cardiovascular surgeries. In esophageal surgery, working in a tier 2 hospital and using traditional ventilation strategies were independent risk factors for hypoxemia during OLV. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in intraoperative hypoxemia during OLV between respondents who performed lung-protective ventilation strategies and those who did not.
Lung-protective ventilation strategies during OLV have been widely accepted in mainland China and are strongly recommended for esophageal surgery, particularly in tier 2 hospitals. Implementing volume control ventilation mode and early management of oxygen desaturation might prevent hypoxemia during OLV.
关于中国大陆单肺通气(OLV)期间肺保护性通气策略的应用,现有信息有限。为此开展了一项全国性问卷调查,以调查当前临床实践中的这一问题。
该调查涵盖多个方面,包括受访者的人口统计学信息、OLV的建立与维持、术中监测标准以及与OLV相关的并发症。
从中国大陆所有省份收集到543份有效回复。容量控制通气模式、每千克预测体重4至6毫升、纯氧吸入以及呼气末正压≤5厘米水柱是最常用的通气参数。术中呼吸监测的最常见阈值为外周血氧饱和度(SpO)90%至94%、呼气末二氧化碳分压45至55毫米汞柱以及气道压力30至34厘米水柱。94%的受访者传统上会进行肺复张手法。分别有75%和51%的受访者经历过术中低氧血症和喉损伤。在肺、心血管和食管手术中,经常在OLV期间经历低氧血症的麻醉医生比例分别为19%、24%和7%。高达32%的受访者在OLV期间不愿采用肺保护性通气策略。多元回归分析显示,容量控制通气模式和SpO干预阈值<85%是肺和心血管手术中OLV期间低氧血症的独立危险因素。在食管手术中,在二级医院工作和采用传统通气策略是OLV期间低氧血症的独立危险因素。亚组分析显示,采用肺保护性通气策略的受访者与未采用该策略的受访者在OLV期间的术中低氧血症方面无显著差异。
OLV期间的肺保护性通气策略在中国大陆已被广泛接受,强烈推荐用于食管手术,尤其是在二级医院。采用容量控制通气模式和早期处理氧饱和度下降可能预防OLV期间的低氧血症。