Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10553/123909
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCampos, Niklas S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBluth, Thomasen_US
dc.contributor.authorHemmes, Sabrine NTen_US
dc.contributor.authorLibrero, Julianen_US
dc.contributor.authorPozo, Natividaden_US
dc.contributor.authorFerrando, Carlosen_US
dc.contributor.authorBall, Lorenzoen_US
dc.contributor.authorMazzinari, Guidoen_US
dc.contributor.authorPelosi, Paoloen_US
dc.contributor.authorGamade de Abreu, Marceloen_US
dc.contributor.authorSchultz, Marcus J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSerpa Neto, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez Pérez, Aurelio Eduardoen_US
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-11T11:26:04Z-
dc.date.available2023-07-11T11:26:04Z-
dc.date.issued2022en_US
dc.identifier.issn0007-0912en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10553/123909-
dc.description.abstractBackground: High intraoperative PEEP with recruitment manoeuvres may improve perioperative outcomes. We re-examined this question by conducting a patient-level meta-analysis of three clinical trials in adult patients at increased risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who underwent non-cardiothoracic and non-neurological surgery. Methods: The three trials enrolled patients at 128 hospitals in 24 countries from February 2011 to February 2018. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with low tidal volume. Analyses were performed using one-stage, two-level, mixed modelling (site as a random effect; trial as a fixed effect). The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications within the first week, analysed using mixed-effect logistic regression. Pre-specified subgroup analyses of nine patient characteristics and seven procedure and care-delivery characteristics were also performed. Results: Complete datasets were available for 1913 participants ventilated with high PEEP and recruitment manoeuvres, compared with 1924 participants who received low PEEP. The primary outcome occurred in 562/1913 (29.4%) participants randomised to high PEEP, compared with 620/1924 (32.2%) participants randomised to low PEEP (unadjusted odds ratio [OR]=0.87; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.75–1.01; P=0.06). Higher PEEP resulted in 87/1913 (4.5%) participants requiring interventions for desaturation, compared with 216/1924 (11.2%) participants randomised to low PEEP (OR=0.34; 95% CI, 0.26–0.45). Intraoperative hypotension was associated more frequently (784/1913 [41.0%]) with high PEEP, compared with low PEEP (579/1924 [30.1%]; OR=1.87; 95% CI, 1.60–2.17). Conclusions: High PEEP combined with recruitment manoeuvres during low tidal volume ventilation in patients undergoing major surgery did not reduce postoperative pulmonary complications.en_US
dc.languagespaen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBritish journal of anaesthesiaen_US
dc.sourceBritish Journal of Anaesthesia, [ISSN 0007-0912], v. 128, (6), p. 1040-1051, (2022).en_US
dc.subject32 Ciencias médicasen_US
dc.subject3213 Cirugíaen_US
dc.subject.otherMechanical ventilationen_US
dc.subject.otherPEEPen_US
dc.subject.otherPostoperative pulmonary complicationsen_US
dc.subject.otherSurgeryen_US
dc.titleIntraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure and postoperative pulmonary complications: a patient-level meta-analysis of three randomised clinical trialsen_US
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.bja.2022.02.039en_US
dc.identifier.pmid35431038-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85128227457-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000846888200026-
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#-
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#-
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#-
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#-
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#-
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#-
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#-
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#-
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#-
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#-
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#-
dc.contributor.orcid#NODATA#-
dc.description.lastpage1051en_US
dc.identifier.issue6-
dc.description.firstpage1040en_US
dc.relation.volume128en_US
dc.investigacionCiencias de la Saluden_US
dc.type2Artículoen_US
dc.description.numberofpages12en_US
dc.utils.revisionen_US
dc.date.coverdateAbril 2022en_US
dc.identifier.ulpgcen_US
dc.contributor.buulpgcBU-MEDen_US
dc.description.sjr2,487-
dc.description.jcr9,8-
dc.description.sjrqQ1-
dc.description.jcrqQ1-
dc.description.scieSCIE-
dc.description.miaricds11,0-
item.fulltextSin texto completo-
item.grantfulltextnone-
crisitem.author.deptGIR IUSA-ONEHEALTH 5: Reproducción Animal, Oncología y Anestesiología Comparadas-
crisitem.author.deptIU de Sanidad Animal y Seguridad Alimentaria-
crisitem.author.deptDepartamento de Ciencias Médicas y Quirúrgicas-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0003-0947-263X-
crisitem.author.parentorgIU de Sanidad Animal y Seguridad Alimentaria-
crisitem.author.fullNameRodríguez Pérez, Aurelio Eduardo-
Appears in Collections:Artículos
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

34
checked on Mar 30, 2025

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

31
checked on Mar 30, 2025

Page view(s)

31
checked on Jan 13, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Share



Export metadata



Items in accedaCRIS are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.