Lung ultrasound score-based perioperative assessment of pressure-controlled ventilation-volume guaranteed or volume-controlled ventilation in geriatrics: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Young Sung Kim, Young Ju Won, Dong Kyu Lee, Byung Gun Lim, Heezoo Kim, Il Ok Lee, Jin Hee Yun, Myoung Hoon KongDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Guro-gu, Seoul, Republic of KoreaPurpose: Recent studies have shown the...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2019
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/f48b77bfaa704049b99d53338e0edfd8 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Young Sung Kim, Young Ju Won, Dong Kyu Lee, Byung Gun Lim, Heezoo Kim, Il Ok Lee, Jin Hee Yun, Myoung Hoon KongDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Guro-gu, Seoul, Republic of KoreaPurpose: Recent studies have shown the potential benefits of pressure-controlled ventilation-volume guaranteed (PCV-VG) compared to volume-controlled ventilation (VCV), but the results were not impressive. We assessed the effects of PCV-VG versus VCV in elderly patients by using lung ultrasound score (LUS).Patients and methods: Elderly patients (aged 65–90 years) scheduled for hip joint surgery were randomly assigned to either the PCV-VG or VCV group during general anesthesia. LUS and mechanical ventilator parameters were evaluated before induction, 30 mins after a semi-lateral position change, during supine repositioning before awakening, and 15 mins after arrival to the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Pulmonary function tests were performed before and after surgery. Other recovery indicators were also assessed in the PACU.Results: A total of 76 patients (40 for PCV-VG and 36 for VCV) were included this study. Demographic data showed no significant difference between the two groups. In both groups, LUSs before induction were significantly lower than those at other time points. LUSs of the VCV group were significantly increased during perioperative periods compared with the PCV-VG group (p=0.049). Visualized LUS modeling suggested an intuitive difference in the two groups and unequal distribution in lung aeration. Higher dynamic compliance and lower inspiratory peak pressure were observed in the PVC-VG group compared to the VCV group (33.54 vs 27.36, p<0.001; 18.93 vs 21.19, p<0.001, respectively). Postoperative forced vital capacity of the VCV group was lower than that of PCV-VG group, but this result was not significant (2.06 vs 1.79, respectively; p=0.091). The other respiratory data are comparable between the two groups.Conclusion: The PCV-VG group showed better LUS compared with the VCV group. Moreover, LUS modeling in both groups suggests non-homogeneous and positional change in lung aerations during surgery.Clinical trial registration: This study was registered at the UMIN clinical trials registry (unique trial number: UMIN000029355; registration number: R000033510)Keywords: geriatrics, hip joint surgery, mechanical ventilation, lung physiology, ultrasonography |
|---|