Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2025 article

Intraoperative Driving Pressure–Guided High PEEP vs Standard Low PEEP for Postoperative Pulmonary Complications

24Citations signalées — pas une note de qualité
13Institutions déclarées
8Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Résumé fourni par la source

Importance: The effect of individualized high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers, targeting a low driving pressure, on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery is uncertain. Objective: To compare driving pressure-guided high PEEP and recruitment maneuvers with standard low PEEP without recruitment maneuvers with respect to postoperative pulmonary complications. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of 1435 adults at increased risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who were scheduled for open abdominal surgery. The trial was conducted at 29 sites in 5 countries across Europe from April 2019 to December 2024; final follow-up was in March 2025. Statistical analysis was conducted in May 2025. Intervention: Patients were randomized to undergo intraoperative ventilation with driving pressure-guided high PEEP and recruitment maneuvers (n = 718) or to intraoperative ventilation with standard low PEEP (n = 717). All patients received low tidal volume ventilation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of pulmonary complications within the first 5 postoperative days, including severe respiratory failure, bronchospasm, suspected pulmonary infection, pulmonary infiltrates, aspiration pneumonitis, atelectasis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pleural effusion, cardiopulmonary edema, and pneumothorax. Among the 16 prespecified secondary outcomes, 4 concerned intraoperative complications, including hypotension (decrease in mean arterial pressure of >20% for >3 minutes) and desaturation (Spo2 <92% for >1 minute). Results: Among 1468 adults, 1435 (98%) completed the trial (median [IQR] age, 66 [57-74] years; 52% female). In the primary analysis population, the primary outcome occurred in 142 of 718 patients (19.8%) in the driving pressure-guided high PEEP group compared with 125 of 717 patients (17.4%) in the low PEEP group (absolute difference, 2.5% [95% CI, -1.5% to 6.4%]; P = .23). The incidence of hypotension (382 [54.0%] vs 317 [45.0%]) and use of vasoactive agents (224 [32.0%] vs 130 [18.8%]) was higher in the high PEEP group; the incidence of intraoperative desaturation (6 [0.8%] vs 20 [2.8%]) was higher in the low PEEP group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients at increased risk for postoperative pulmonary complications undergoing open abdominal surgery under general anesthesia, intraoperative ventilation with driving pressure-guided high PEEP and recruitment maneuvers, compared with a strategy with standard low PEEP, did not reduce postoperative pulmonary complications. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03884543.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Intraoperative Driving Pressure–Guided High PEEP vs Standard Low PEEP for Postoperative Pulmonary Complications
Date Crossref
24/02/2026
Éditeur
American Medical Association (AMA)
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Institutions déclarées

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Sujets associés

Respiratory Support and MechanismsEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryNeonatal Respiratory Health Research

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Recherche à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé ; OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant requis, aucune donnée externe enregistrée en base. Sources et limites.