Airway driving pressure, easily measured as plateau pressure minus PEEP, is a surrogate for alveolar stress and strain. However, the effect of its targeted reduction remains unclear. In this multicentre trial, patients undergoing lung resection surgery were randomised to either a driving pressure group (n=650) receiving an alveolar recruitment/individualised PEEP to deliver the lowest driving pressure or to a conventional protective ventilation group (n=650) with fixed PEEP of 5 cm H₂O. The primary outcome was a composite of pulmonary complications within 7 days postoperatively. The modified intention-to-treat analysis included 1170 patients (mean [standard deviation, sd]; age, 63 [10] yr; 47% female). The mean driving pressure was 7.1 cm H₂O in the driving pressure group vs 9.2 cm H₂O in the protective ventilation group (mean difference [95% confidence interval, CI]; -2.1 [-2.4 to -1.9] cm H₂O; P<0.001). The incidence of pulmonary complications was not different between the two groups: driving pressure group (233/576, 40.5%) vs protective ventilation group (254/594, 42.8%) (risk difference -2.3%; 95% CI, -8.0% to 3.3%; P=0.42). Intraoperatively, lung compliance (mean [sd], 42.7 [12.4] vs 33.5 [11.1] ml cm H₂O^-1; P<0.001) and Pa_o2 (median [inter-quartile range], 21.5 [14.5 to 30.4] vs 19.5 [13.5 to 29.1] kPa; P=0.03) were higher and the need for rescue ventilation was less frequent (6.8% vs 10.8%; P=0.02) in the driving pressure group. In lung resection surgery, a driving pressure-guided ventilation improved pulmonary mechanics intraoperatively, but did not reduce the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications compared with a conventional protective ventilation. NCT04260451.

BACKGROUND: Spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension is frequently reported in patients undergoing caesarean section. Mechanistically, sympathetic blockade reduces the systemic vascular resistance and the left ventricular preload, causing hypotension, which is augmented by aortocaval compression. The corrected blood flow time (FTc) is affected by the preload and is inversely related to the afterload. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesised that the preanaesthetic carotid artery FTc could predict hypotension after induction in patients undergoing a caesarean section with spinal anaesthesia. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: A tertiary referral centre in South Korea from September 2018 to November 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-eight parturients scheduled for elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Using carotid ultrasonography, FTc was measured twice prior to inducing spinal anaesthesia. FTc was calculated using both Bazett's (B) and Wodey's (W) formulae. Hypotension was defined as an SBP decrease to less than 80 mmHg, or less than 75% of baseline, or if symptoms consistent with hypotension occurred from the time of injection of the spinal anaesthetic until delivery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was to determine the predictive value of preanaesthetic FTc for postspinal hypotension during caesarean delivery. RESULTS: Among the 35 patients who completed this study, hypotension occurred in 21 (60%). The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves for FTc (B) and FTc (W) were 0.905 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.757 to 0.978, P < 0.001] and 0.922 (95% CI, 0.779 to 0.985, P < 0.001), respectively. The optimal cut-off values for predicting hypotension were 346.4 and 326.9 ms, respectively. The grey zone for FTc (B) and FTc (W) included 40 and 14% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Preanaesthetic carotid artery FTc was a reliable indicator of postspinal hypotension in parturients. Considering the grey zone, Wodey's formula is better than Bazett's formula. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03631329.

When selecting the nasotracheal tube diameter for nasotracheal intubation, atraumatic introduction of the tube through the nasal passage and a safe location of the tube’s cuff and tip should be ensured simultaneously. To maintain safety margin for the tube’s cuff and tip from the vocal cords and carina (2 cm and 3 cm, respectively), the maximum allowable proximal-cuff-to-tip distance was calculated as 5 cm less than the measured vocal cords-to-carina distance. The primary aim of this study was to find a single predictive preoperative factor of the nostril size and maximum allowable proximal-cuff-to-tip distance of nasotracheal tubes. The secondary aim was to compare the difference in the safety margin between the maximum allowable proximal-cuff-to-tip distance based on the patient’s airway and the actual proximal-cuff-to-tip distance of the selected tube. We used fiberoptic bronchoscope to measure the distance from the vocal cords to the carina for the calculation of the maximum allowable proximal-cuff-to-tip distance. We analyzed the association of preoperative characteristics such as age, sex, height, and weight with the nostril size and maximum allowable proximal-cuff-to-tip distance. The proportion of patients with appropriate locations of both the cuff and tip was evaluated. Sex and height were significant predictive factors of the nostril size and maximum allowable proximal-cuff-to-tip distance, respectively (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0048). The difference in the safety margin was significantly decreased when the tube diameter was selected based on the nostril size rather than by sex (p<0.0001). The proportion of patients who had the appropriate cuff/tip location was significantly larger (75.2%) when the tube diameter was selected by sex compared to when it was selected by the nostril size (65%) (p<0.0001). It is more suitable to select the nasotracheal tube diameter based on sex rather than by nostril size to ensure the safe location of the tube’s cuff and tip simultaneously.

Abdou M, et al. Yonsei Med J. 2022 Oct;63(10):927-932. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2022.0163