ICYTE   26279
INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS Y TECNOLOGICAS EN ELECTRONICA
Unidad Ejecutora - UE
artículos
Título:
1. Multimodal Non-Invasive Monitoring to Apply an Open Lung Approach Strategy in Morbidly Obese Patients During Bariatric Surgery
Autor/es:
MARCOS OCHOA; CECILIA M. ACOSTA ; JORGE MARTINEZ ARCA ; EMILIANO GOGNIAT; CARLOS FERRANDO ; MATÍAS MADORNO ; GERARDO TUSMAN ; STEPHAN H. BÖHM; ADRIANA SCANDURRA ; FERNANDO SUAREZ SIPMANN.
Revista:
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
Editorial:
Springer Netherlands
Referencias:
Año: 2019 p. 1 - 10
ISSN:
1387-1307
Resumen:
To evaluate the use of non-invasive variables for monitoring an open-lung approach (OLA) strategy in bariatric surgery. Twelve morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery received a baseline protective ventilation with 8 cmH2O of positive-end expiratory pressure (PEEP). Then, the OLA strategy was applied consisting in lung recruitment followed by a decremental PEEP trial, from 20 to 8 cmH2O, in steps of 2 cmH2O to find the lung´s closing pressure. Baseline ventilation was then resumed setting open lung PEEP (OL-PEEP) at 2 cmH2O above this pressure. The multimodal non-invasive variables used for monitoring OLA consisted in pulse oximetry (SpO2), respiratory compliance (Crs), end-expiratory lung volume measured by a capnodynamic method (EELVCO2), and esophageal manometry. OL-PEEP was detected at 15.9 ± 1.7 cmH2O corresponding to a positive end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (PL,ee) of 0.9 ± 1.1 cmH2O. ROC analysis showed that SpO2 was more accurate (AUC 0.92, IC95% 0.87-0.97) than Crs (AUC 0.76, IC95% 0.87-0.97) and EELVCO2 (AUC 0.73, IC95% 0.64-0.82) to detect the lung´s closing pressure according to the change of PL,ee from positive to negative values. Compared to baseline ventilation with 8 cmH2O of PEEP, OLA increased EELVCO2 (1309 ± 517 vs. 2177 ± 679 mL) and decreased driving pressure (18.3 ± 2.2 vs. 10.1 ± 1.7 cmH2O), estimated shunt (17.7 ± 3.4 vs. 4.2 ± 1.4%), lung strain (0.39 ± 0.07 vs. 0.22 ± 0.06) and lung elastance (28.4 ± 5.8 vs. 15.3 ± 4.3 cmH2O/L), respectively; all p