Publication: Fully automated postoperative ventilation in cardiac surgery patients: a randomised clinical trial
Issued Date
2020-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14716771
00070912
00070912
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85089253636
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
British Journal of Anaesthesia. (2020)
Suggested Citation
Ashley J.R. De Bie, Ary Serpa Neto, David M. van Meenen, Arthur R. Bouwman, Arnout N. Roos, Joost R. Lameijer, Erik H.M. Korsten, Marcus J. Schultz, Alexander J.G.H. Bindels Fully automated postoperative ventilation in cardiac surgery patients: a randomised clinical trial. British Journal of Anaesthesia. (2020). doi:10.1016/j.bja.2020.06.037 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/58324
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Fully automated postoperative ventilation in cardiac surgery patients: a randomised clinical trial
Abstract
© 2020 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: Ensuring that lung-protective ventilation is achieved at scale is challenging in perioperative practice. Fully automated ventilation may be more effective in delivering lung-protective ventilation. Here, we compared automated lung-protective ventilation with conventional ventilation after elective cardiac surgery in haemodynamically stable patients. Methods: In this single-centre investigator-led study, patients were randomly assigned at the end of cardiac surgery to receive either automated (adaptive support ventilation) or conventional ventilation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of postoperative ventilation time characterised by exposure to predefined optimal, acceptable, and critical (injurious) ventilatory parameters in the first three postoperative hours. Secondary outcomes included severe hypoxaemia (SpO2 <85%) and resumption of spontaneous breathing. Data are presented as mean (95% confidence intervals [CIs]). Results: We randomised 220 patients (30.4% females; age: 62–76 yr). Subjects randomised to automated ventilation (n=109) spent a 29.7% (95% CI: 22.1–37.4) higher mean proportion of postoperative ventilation time receiving optimal postoperative ventilation after surgery (P<0.001) compared with subjects receiving conventional postoperative ventilation (n=111). Automated ventilation also reduced the proportion of postoperative ventilation time that subjects were exposed to injurious ventilatory settings by 2.5% (95% CI: 1–4; P=0.003). Severe hypoxaemia was less likely in subjects randomised to automated ventilation (risk ratio: 0.26 [0.22–0.31]; P<0.01). Subjects resumed spontaneous breathing more rapidly when randomised to automated ventilation (hazard ratio: 1.38 [1.05–1.83]; P=0.03). Conclusions: Fully automated ventilation in haemodynamically stable patients after cardiac surgery optimised lung-protective ventilation during postoperative ventilation, with fewer episodes of severe hypoxaemia and an accelerated resumption of spontaneous breathing. Clinical trial registration: NCT03180203.