Paolo Severgnini

Prof. Paolo Severgnini

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

36Years (1991-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 April 2016 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ANAry Serpa Neto
Ary Serpa Neto
SHSabrine N T Hemmes
Sabrine N T Hemmes
CBCarmen S V Barbas
Carmen S V Barbas
MBMartin Beiderlinden
Martin Beiderlinden
AFAna Fernandez-Bustamante
Ana Fernandez-Bustamante
MSMarcus J Schultz
Marcus J Schultz

1 June 2013 in Anesthesiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
PSPaolo Severgnini
Paolo Severgnini
GSGabriele Selmo
Gabriele Selmo
CLChristian Lanza
Christian Lanza
ACAlessandro Chiesa
Alessandro Chiesa
AFAlice Frigerio
Alice Frigerio
PPPaolo Pelosi
Paolo Pelosi
Background: The impact of intraoperative ventilation on postoperative pulmonary complications is not defined. The authors aimed at determining the effectiveness of protective mechanical ventilation during open abdominal surgery on a modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score as primary outcome and postoperative pulmonary function. Methods: Prospective randomized, open-label, clinical trial performed in 56 patients scheduled to undergo elective open abdominal surgery lasting more than 2 h. Patients were assigned by envelopes to mechanical ventilation with tidal volume of 9 ml/kg ideal body weight and zero-positive end-expiratory pressure (standard ventilation strategy) or tidal volumes of 7 ml/kg ideal body weight, 10 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure, and recruitment maneuvers (protective ventilation strategy). Modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score, gas exchange, and pulmonary functional tests were measured preoperatively, as well as at days 1, 3, and 5 after surgery. Results: Patients ventilated protectively showed better pulmonary functional tests up to day 5, fewer alterations on chest x-ray up to day 3 and higher arterial oxygenation in air at days 1, 3, and 5 (mmHg; mean ± SD): 77.1 ± 13.0 versus 64.9 ± 11.3 (P = 0.0006), 80.5 ± 10.1 versus 69.7 ± 9.3 (P = 0.0002), and 82.1 ± 10.7 versus 78.5 ± 21.7 (P = 0.44) respectively. The modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score was lower in the protective ventilation strategy at days 1 and 3. The percentage of patients in hospital at day 28 after surgery was not different between groups (7 vs. 15% respectively, P = 0.42). Conclusion: A protective ventilation strategy during abdominal surgery lasting more than 2 h improved respiratory function and reduced the modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score without affecting length of hospital stay.

1 July 2015 in Anesthesiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ANAry Serpa Neto
Ary Serpa Neto
SHSabrine N. T. Hemmes
Sabrine N. T. Hemmes
CBCarmen S. V. Barbas
Carmen S. V. Barbas
MBMartin Beiderlinden
Martin Beiderlinden
MBMichelle Biehl
Michelle Biehl
FIfor the PROVE Network Investigators
for the PROVE Network Investigators
This individual patient meta-analysis of 2,127 patients ventilated under general anesthesia for surgery from 15 randomized controlled trials shows that intraoperative ventilation with low tidal volume protects against postoperative pulmonary complications, but further trials are necessary to define the role of intraoperative higher positive end–expiratory pressure to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery. Background: Recent studies show that intraoperative mechanical ventilation using low tidal volumes (V T) can prevent postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). The aim of this individual patient data meta-analysis is to evaluate the individual associations between V T size and positive end–expiratory pressure (PEEP) level and occurrence of PPC. Methods: Randomized controlled trials comparing protective ventilation (low V T with or without high levels of PEEP) and conventional ventilation (high V T with low PEEP) in patients undergoing general surgery. The primary outcome was development of PPC. Predefined prognostic factors were tested using multivariate logistic regression. Results: Fifteen randomized controlled trials were included (2,127 patients). There were 97 cases of PPC in 1,118 patients (8.7%) assigned to protective ventilation and 148 cases in 1,009 patients (14.7%) assigned to conventional ventilation (adjusted relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.88; P < 0.01). There were 85 cases of PPC in 957 patients (8.9%) assigned to ventilation with low V T and high PEEP levels and 63 cases in 525 patients (12%) assigned to ventilation with low V T and low PEEP levels (adjusted relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.37; P = 0.72). A dose–response relationship was found between the appearance of PPC and V T size (R 2 = 0.39) but not between the appearance of PPC and PEEP level (R 2 = 0.08). Conclusions: These data support the beneficial effects of ventilation with use of low V T in patients undergoing surgery. Further trials are necessary to define the role of intraoperative higher PEEP to prevent PPC during nonopen abdominal surgery.

1 December 2014 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ANAry Serpa Neto
Ary Serpa Neto
SHSabrine Nt Hemmes
Sabrine Nt Hemmes
CBCarmen Sv Barbas
Carmen Sv Barbas
MBMartin Beiderlinden
Martin Beiderlinden
AFAna Fernandez-Bustamante
Ana Fernandez-Bustamante
MSMarcus J Schultz
Marcus J Schultz

1 March 2002 in Critical Care Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MAMassimo Antonelli
Massimo Antonelli
GCGiorgio Conti
Giorgio Conti
PPPaolo Pelosi
Paolo Pelosi
CGCesare Gregoretti
Cesare Gregoretti
MPMariano Alberto Pennisi
Mariano Alberto Pennisi
RPRodolfo Proietti
Rodolfo Proietti
To assess the efficacy of noninvasive pressure support ventilation (NPSV) using a new special helmet as first-line intervention to treat patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF), in comparison to NPSV using standard facial mask. Prospective clinical pilot investigation with matched control group in three intensive care units of university hospitals. Thirty-three consecutive patients without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and with hypoxemic ARF (defined as severe dyspnea at rest, respiratory rate >30 breaths/min, Pao2:Fio2 < 200, and active contraction of the accessory muscles of respiration) were enrolled. Each patient treated with NPSV by helmet was matched with two controls with ARF treated with NPSV via a facial mask, selected by simplified acute physiologic score II, age, Pao2/Fio2, and arterial pH at admission. Primary end points were the improvement of gas exchanges, the need for endotracheal intubation, and the complications related to NPSV. The 33 patients and the 66 controls had similar characteristics at baseline. Both groups improved oxygenation after NPSV. Eight patients (24%) in the helmet group and 21 patients (32%) in the facial mask group (p = .3) failed NPSV and were intubated. No patients failed NPSV because of intolerance of the technique in the helmet group in comparison with 8 patients (38%) in the mask group (p = .047). Complications related to the technique (skin necrosis, gastric distension, and eye irritation) were fewer in the helmet group compared with the mask group (no patients vs. 14 patients (21%), p = .002). The helmet allowed the continuous application of NPSV for a longer period of time (p = .05). Length of stay in the intensive care unit, intensive care, and hospital mortality were not different. NPSV by helmet successfully treated hypoxemic ARF, with better tolerance and fewer complications than facial mask NPSV.

1 January 2004 in Anesthesiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MAMassimo Antonelli
Massimo Antonelli
MPMariano Alberto Pennisi
Mariano Alberto Pennisi
PPPaolo Pelosi
Paolo Pelosi
CGCesare Gregoretti
Cesare Gregoretti
VSVincenzo Squadrone
Vincenzo Squadrone
GCGiorgio Conti
Giorgio Conti
Background: Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) with a facemask (FM) is effective in patients with acute exacerbation of their chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Whether it is feasible to treat these patients with NPPV delivered by a helmet is not known. Methods: Over a 4-month period, the authors studied 33 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute exacerbation who were admitted to four intensive care units and treated with helmet NPPV. The patients were compared with 33 historical controls treated with FM NPPV, matched for simplified acute physiologic score (SAPS II), age, PaCO2, pH, and PaO2:fractional inspired oxygen tension. The primary endpoints were the feasibility of the technique, improvement of gas exchange, and need for intubation. Results: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. Ten patients in the helmet group and 14 in the FM group (P = 0.22) were intubated. In the helmet group, no patients were unable to tolerate NPPV, whereas five patients required intubation in the FM group (P = 0.047). After 1 h of treatment, both groups had a significant reduction of PaCO2 with improvement of pH; PaCO2 decreased less in the helmet group (P = 0.01). On discontinuing support, PaCO2 was higher (P = 0.002) and pH lower (P = 0.02) in the helmet group than in the control group. One patient in the helmet group, and 12 in the FM group, developed complications related to NPPV (P < 0.001). Length of intensive care unit stay, intensive care unit, and hospital mortality were similar in both groups. Conclusions: Helmet NPPV is feasible and can be used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute exacerbation, but it does not improve carbon dioxide elimination as efficiently as does FM NPPV.