View clinical trials related to Driving Pressure.
Filter by:This study will be conducted to evaluate the effect of driving pressure guided ventilation compared with conventional protective lung ventilation during laparoscopic bariatric surgeries in morbid obese patients. - the primary outcome: Intraoperative oxygenation measured by the arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2). - the secondary outcome: incidence of early postoperative pulmonary complications e.g., postoperative hypoxia, the need for supplementary oxygen, atelectasis, barotrauma, and respiratory failure.
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening disease, patients with ARDS usually need mechanical ventilation. The treatment of ARDS include low tidal volume ventilation, steroid, extracorporeal membraneous oxygenator, inhaled nitric oxide or prone position . Some studies showed prone position had beneficial effect of oxygenation and mortality for severe ARDS patients, the duration of prone position should be at least 10 hours. It is unknown the optimal duration of prone position which is better for severe ARDS patients. This study will compare the clinical differences of 16-hour and 24-hour prone position for severe ARDS patients.
Pulmonary complications are the most common complication in thoracic surgery and the leading cause of mortality.Therefore, lung protection is utmost important, and protective ventilation is strongly recommended in thoracic surgery. Protective ventilation is a prevailing ventilatory strategy in these days and is comprised of small tidal volume, limited inspiratory pressure, and application of positive end-expiratory pressure. However, several retrospective studies recently suggested that tidal volume, inspiratory pressure, and positive end-expiratory pressure are not related to patient outcomes, or only related when they influenced the driving pressure. Recently, the investigators reported the first prospective study about the driving pressure-guided ventilation in thoracic surgery. PEEP was titrated to bring the lowest driving pressure in each patient and applied throughout the one lung ventilation. The application of individualized PEEP reduced the incidence of pulmonary complications.However, that study was small size single center study with 312 patients. Thus, investigators try to perform large scale multicenter study. Through this study investigators evaluate that driving pressure-guided ventilation can reduce the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications compared with conventional protective ventilation in thoracic surgery.
Prospective, observational, longitudinal study, September 2019 to March 2020 of all adult patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation treated at General Hospital of Zone 11 IMSS in Piedras Negras, Coahuila. The investigators aim to assess the relation of lung protective ventilation, mechanical power and driving pressure in mortality and SOFA of mechanically ventilated patients inside and outside ICU at the General Hospital of Zona 11 Piedras Negras, IMSS
ARDS is the most common acute respiratory failure in the ICU and the mortality rate is still as high as 40%. Mechanical ventilation(MV) is the major supportive treatment for ARDS, but inappropriate ventilator setting could lead to patients suffering from Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury(VILI). VILI is an important factor in the aggravation of lung injury during MV. The main mechanism of VILI is the unreasonable pressure change (stress) causing excessive local stretch of the lung (strain), which eventually exceeds the capacity of the lung. The protective strategies during MV (limited platform pressure, low tidal volume, suitable PEEP) are important means of avoiding VILI during MV. The essences of these strategies are to limit the stress and strain of the lung during MV. However, these lung protective ventilation strategies only start from a single indicator and have certain limitations. Considering the various shortcoming of the current strategies, Amato et al. combined two indicators and proposed the concept of driving pressure(driving pressure=tidal volume/respiratory compliance). Several studies also confirmed that limiting the driving pressure can significantly improve patients' outcomes. But the concept of driving pressure and its safety threshold have certain limitations. Taking into the limitations of existing low tidal volume, limited platform pressure, and restricted driving pressure strategies in lung protection ventilation, Gattinoni et al. first integrated the all factors such as driving pressure, respiratory rate, airway resistance, respiratory rate and PEEP together and the concept of mechanical power was formally proposed.There is a good correlation between mechanical power and lung strain in a certain PEEP range. Cressoni et al. demonstrated through animal experiments that excessive mechanical power during MV caused significant VILI in animals; Guérin et al. also found that mechanical power was closely related to patient outcome in patients with ARDS. Not only that, but Gattinoni reanalyzed Güldner's experimental data and found that mechanical power is more valuable in reflecting lung damage than driving pressure. Mechanical power is a good indicator of response to patient VILI. Therefore, the investigators hypothesized that only limiting the driving pressure during MV of patients could not achieve ideal lung protective ventilation. Mechanical power may be a better indicator of response VILI; and the safety threshold of driving pressure based on retrospective analysis may not be suitable for patients with severe ARDS, and a lower driving pressure can protect patients with severe ARDS. This study intends to use a single-center, self-controlled study design to reflect lung injury through stress and strain and mechanical work of the lungs, to verify the safety of different driving pressures for severe ARDS, and to further find a safer driving margin for patients with severe ARDS
This study aims to prove that driving pressure limited ventilation is superior in preventing postoperative pulmonary complications to existing protective ventilation.