Recruitment-to-inflation ratio to assess response to PEEP during laparoscopic surgery: A physiologic study
Marco Covotta, Claudia Claroni, Giulia Torregiani, Luca S. Menga, E. Venti, Gaetano Gazzè, Gian Marco Anzellotti, Valentina Ceccarelli, Pierpaolo Gaglioti, Sara Orlando, Tommaso Rosà, Ester Forastiere, Massimo Antonelli, Domenico Luca Grieco
- Year
- 2024
- Citations
- 6
Abstract
During laparoscopic surgery, the role of PEEP to improve outcome is controversial. Mechanistically, PEEP benefits depend on the extent of alveolar recruitment, which prevents ventilator-induced lung injury by reducing lung dynamic strain. The hypotheses of this study were that pneumoperitoneum-induced aeration loss and PEEP-induced recruitment are inter-individually variable, and that the recruitment-to-inflation ratio (R/I) can identify patients who benefit from PEEP in terms of strain reduction. Sequential study. Operating room. Seventeen ASA I-III patients receiving robot-assisted prostatectomy during Trendelenburg pneumoperitoneum. Patients underwent end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and respiratory/lung/chest wall mechanics (esophageal manometry and inspiratory/expiratory occlusions) assessment at PEEP = 0 cmH2O before and after pneumoperitoneum, at PEEP = 4 and 12 cmH2O during pneumoperitoneum. Pneumoperitoneum-induced derecruitment and PEEP-induced recruitment were assessed through a simplified method based on multiple pressure-volume curve. Dynamic and static strain changes were evaluated. R/I between 12 and 4 cmH2O was assessed from EELV. Inter-individual variability was rated with the ratio of standard deviation to mean (CoV). Pneumoperitoneum reduced EELV by (median [IqR]) 410 mL [80–770] (p < 0.001) and increased dynamic strain by 0.04 [0.01–0.07] (p < 0.001), with high inter-individual variability (CoV = 70% and 88%, respectively). Compared to PEEP = 4 cmH2O, PEEP = 12 cmH2O yielded variable amount of recruitment (139 mL [96–366] CoV = 101%), causing different extent of dynamic strain reduction (median decrease 0.02 [0.01–0.04], p = 0.002; CoV = 86%) and static strain increases (median increase 0.05 [0.04–0.07], p = 0.01, CoV = 33%). R/I (1.73 [0.58–3.35]) estimated the decrease in dynamic strain (p ≤0.001, r = −0.90) and the increase in static strain (p = 0.009, r = −0.73) induced by PEEP, while PEEP-induced changes in respiratory and lung mechanics did not. Trendelenburg pneumoperitoneum yields variable derecruitment: PEEP capability to revert these phenomena varies significantly among individuals. High R/I identifies patients in whom higher PEEP mostly reduces dynamic strain with limited static strain increases, potentially allowing individualized settings.
Keywords
Related papers
Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets
Daron Acemoğlu, Pascual Restrepo
2019
Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm
Leigh R. Hochberg, Daniel Bacher, Beata Jarosiewicz +8 more
2012
Campbell-Walsh urology
Alan J. Wein editor-in-chief
2012
Stroke rehabilitation
Peter Langhorne, Julie Bernhardt, Gert Kwakkel
2011