Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Mar;120(3):581-591.
doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2017.11.078. Epub 2017 Dec 1.

Variable versus conventional lung protective mechanical ventilation during open abdominal surgery (PROVAR): a randomised controlled trial

Affiliations
Free article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Variable versus conventional lung protective mechanical ventilation during open abdominal surgery (PROVAR): a randomised controlled trial

P M Spieth et al. Br J Anaesth. 2018 Mar.
Free article

Abstract

Background: Experimental studies showed that controlled variable ventilation (CVV) yielded better pulmonary function compared to non-variable ventilation (CNV) in injured lungs. We hypothesized that CVV improves intraoperative and postoperative respiratory function in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery.

Methods: Fifty patients planned for open abdominal surgery lasting >3 h were randomly assigned to receive either CVV or CNV. Mean tidal volumes and PEEP were set at 8 ml kg-1 (predicted body weight) and 5 cm H2O, respectively. In CVV, tidal volumes varied randomly, following a normal distribution, on a breath-by-breath basis. The primary endpoint was the forced vital capacity (FVC) on postoperative Day 1. Secondary endpoints were oxygenation, non-aerated lung volume, distribution of ventilation, and pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications until postoperative Day 5.

Results: FVC did not differ significantly between CVV and CNV on postoperative Day 1, 61.5 (standard deviation 22.1) % vs 61.9 (23.6) %, respectively; mean [95% confidence interval (CI)] difference, -0.4 (-13.2-14.0), P=0.95. Intraoperatively, CVV did not result in improved respiratory function, haemodynamics, or redistribution of ventilation compared to CNV. Postoperatively, FVC, forced expiratory volume at the first second (FEV1), and FEV1/FVC deteriorated, while atelectasis volume and plasma levels of interleukin-6 and interleukin-8 increased, but values did not differ between groups. The incidence of postoperative pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications was comparable in CVV and CNV.

Conclusions: In patients undergoing open abdominal surgery, CVV did not improve intraoperative and postoperative respiratory function compared with CNV.

Clinical trial registration: NCT 01683578.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01683578.

Keywords: Abdominal surgery; General anaesthesia; Lung protective ventilation; Mechanical ventilation; Variable ventilation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources