Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMC Anesthesiol. 2018 Apr 2;18(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12871-018-0495-7.

Application of intraoperative lung-protective ventilation varies in accordance with the knowledge of anaesthesiologists: a single-Centre questionnaire study and a retrospective observational study.

Author information

1
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.
2
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. anesjeongmin@yuhs.ac.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

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 H2O), 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.

METHODS:

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.

RESULTS:

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 (VT < 10 mL/kgIBW and PEEP ≥5 cm H2O) between 2004 and 2014 (0/818 [0.0%] vs. 280/818 [34.2%]; p <  0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

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.

KEYWORDS:

Knowledge; Lung-protective ventilation; Mechanical ventilation; Perioperative ventilation

PMID:
29606090
PMCID:
PMC5879938
DOI:
10.1186/s12871-018-0495-7
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center