Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10553/41807
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGuerra Hernández, E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez Pérez, Aurelioen_US
dc.contributor.authorFreixinet Gilard, J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMartín Álamo, M. N.en_US
dc.contributor.authorEscudero Socorro, M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez Suárez, P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorEsquinas, A. M.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-03T09:43:52Z-
dc.date.available2018-09-03T09:43:52Z-
dc.date.issued2018en_US
dc.identifier.issn1128-3602en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10553/41807-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: To evaluate if the prophylactic application of BiPAP previous to lung resection and 17 hours postoperatively improves respiratory function. In order to do this, we studied the results of arterial blood gases and portable spirometry in the immediate postoperative period and at the first and third postoperative day. Secondary objectives included evaluating whether this same pattern decreases the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) and hospital stay. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized clinical study. Between January 2012 and June 2013, 50 patients who had undergone lung resection with posterolateral thoracotomy were assigned to one of two groups by a random number generator according to whether or not they would receive prophylactic BiPAP pre- and postoperatively. RESULTS: The results of the gasometric and spirometric values were similar in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). There was not a decrease in the incidence of PPC in the group that received prophylactic BiPAP. Likewise, postoperative stay was similar in both groups. The BiPAP group was 6.60 ± 4 days and the non BiPAP group was 6.84 ± 3.94 days (p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: One drawback of this work was the limited number of hours that BiPAP was employed, and when compared to other studies, the application of low-pressure support. We did not find any significant differences between using prophylactic BiPAP or not, suggesting that such treatment should not be performed indiscriminately. More investigations are needed with a larger number of patients in order to better evaluate the possible benefits of using prophylactic BiPAP in thoracic surgery.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciencesen_US
dc.sourceEuropean Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences [ISSN 1128-3602], v. 22 (1), p. 190-198, (Enero 2018)en_US
dc.subject321303 Anestesiologíaen_US
dc.subject320508 Enfermedades pulmonaresen_US
dc.subject.otherNoninvasive ventilationen_US
dc.subject.otherBiPAPen_US
dc.subject.otherThoracic surgeryen_US
dc.subject.otherGas exchangeen_US
dc.subject.otherProphylactic noninvasive ventilationen_US
dc.titleProphylactic use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation in lung resectionen_US
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/Articleen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.26355/eurrev-201801-14117en_US
dc.identifier.scopus85040767261-
dc.identifier.isi000423992600025-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid57197255108-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid7006262225-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid57200317726-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid57200319355-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid57200313335-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid8589373900-
dc.contributor.authorscopusid6506411821-
dc.description.lastpage198en_US
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.description.firstpage190en_US
dc.relation.volume22en_US
dc.investigacionCiencias de la Saluden_US
dc.type2Artículoen_US
local.message.claim2020-09-17T12:15:22.097+0100|||rp01018|||submit_approve|||dc_contributor_author|||None*
dc.contributor.daisngid7071837-
dc.contributor.daisngid11389025-
dc.contributor.daisngid25393475-
dc.contributor.daisngid26876697-
dc.contributor.daisngid26695152-
dc.contributor.daisngid2524524-
dc.contributor.daisngid59249-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Hernandez, EG-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Perez, AR-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Gilard, JF-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Alamo, MNM-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Socorro, ME-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Suarez, PR-
dc.contributor.wosstandardWOS:Esquinas, AM-
dc.date.coverdateEnero 2018en_US
dc.identifier.ulpgces
dc.description.sjr0,618
dc.description.jcr2,721
dc.description.sjrqQ2
dc.description.jcrqQ2
dc.description.scieSCIE
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.fulltextCon texto completo-
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.deptGIR IUIBS: Patología y Tecnología médica-
crisitem.author.deptIU de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Sanitarias-
crisitem.author.deptDepartamento de Ciencias Médicas y Quirúrgicas-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0003-0947-263X-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-8158-7872-
crisitem.author.parentorgIU de Sanidad Animal y Seguridad Alimentaria-
crisitem.author.parentorgIU de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Sanitarias-
crisitem.author.fullNameRodríguez Pérez, Aurelio Eduardo-
crisitem.author.fullNameRodríguez Suárez, Pedro Miguel-
Appears in Collections:Artículos
Thumbnail
Adobe PDF (415,13 kB)
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Share



Export metadata



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