High Positive End-expiratory Pressure (PEEP) with Recruitment Maneuvers versus Low PEEP during General Anesthesia for Surgery: A Bayesian Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Three Randomized Clinical Trials
- PMID: 39042027
- DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000005170
High Positive End-expiratory Pressure (PEEP) with Recruitment Maneuvers versus Low PEEP during General Anesthesia for Surgery: A Bayesian Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Three Randomized Clinical Trials
Abstract
Background: The influence of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with recruitment maneuvers on the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications after surgery is still not definitively established. Bayesian analysis can help to gain further insights from the available data and provide a probabilistic framework that is easier to interpret. The objective was to estimate the posterior probability that the use of high PEEP with recruitment maneuvers is associated with reduced postoperative pulmonary complications in patients with intermediate-to-high risk under neutral, pessimistic, and optimistic expectations regarding the treatment effect.
Methods: Multilevel Bayesian logistic regression analysis was performed on individual patient data from three randomized clinical trials carried out on surgical patients at intermediate to high risk for postoperative pulmonary complications. The main outcome was the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications in the early postoperative period. This study examined the effect of high PEEP with recruitment maneuvers versus low PEEP ventilation. Priors were chosen to reflect neutral, pessimistic, and optimistic expectations of the treatment effect.
Results: Using a neutral, pessimistic, or optimistic prior, the posterior mean odds ratio for high PEEP with recruitment maneuvers compared to low PEEP was 0.85 (95% credible interval, 0.71 to 1.02), 0.87 (0.72 to 1.04), and 0.86 (0.71 to 1.02), respectively. Regardless of prior beliefs, the posterior probability of experiencing a beneficial effect exceeded 90%. Subgroup analysis indicated a more pronounced effect in patients who underwent laparoscopy (odds ratio, 0.67 [0.50 to 0.87]) and those at high risk for postoperative pulmonary complications (odds ratio, 0.80 [0.53 to 1.13]). Sensitivity analysis, considering severe postoperative pulmonary complications only or applying a different heterogeneity prior, yielded consistent results.
Conclusions: High PEEP with recruitment maneuvers demonstrated a moderate reduction in the probability of postoperative pulmonary complication occurrence, with a high posterior probability of benefit observed consistently across various prior beliefs, particularly among patients who underwent laparoscopy.
Copyright © 2024 American Society of Anesthesiologists. All Rights Reserved.
References
-
- Schultz MJ, Hemmes SNT, Neto AS, et al.: Epidemiology, practice of ventilation and outcome for patients at increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications: LAS VEGAS–An observational study in 29 countries. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2017; 34:492–507
-
- Futier E, Constantin JM, Paugam-Burtz C, et al.; IMPROVE Study Group: A trial of intraoperative low-tidal-volume ventilation in abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:428–37
-
- Lagier D, Zeng C, Fernandez-Bustamante A, Vidal Melo MF: Perioperative pulmonary atelectasis: Part II. Clinical implications. A nesthesiology 2022; 136:206–36
-
- Campos NS, Bluth T, Hemmes SNT, et al.; REPEAT: Intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure and postoperative pulmonary complications: A patient-level meta-analysis of three randomised clinical trials. Br J Anaesth 2022; 128:1040–51
-
- Wasserstein RL, Lazar N: The ASA’s statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. Am Stat 2016; 70:129–33
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical