key: cord-0004438-nah9gwwa
authors: Costa Souza, George Márcio; Santos, Gianni Mara; Zimpel, Sandra Adriana; Melnik, Tamara
title: Intraoperative ventilation strategies for obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis
date: 2020-02-04
journal: BMC Anesthesiol
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-020-0936-y
sha: 0b9738ffb84ed932178680c6384bbf0defa0ebad
doc_id: 4438
cord_uid: nah9gwwa

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a global epidemic, and it is widely known that increased Body mass index (BMI) is associated with alterations in respiratory mechanics. Bariatric surgery is established as an effective treatment for this condition. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and effectiveness of different ventilation strategies in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials aimed at evaluating ventilation strategies for obese patients was carried out. Primary outcomes: in-hospital mortality, adequacy of gas exchange, and respiration mechanics alterations. RESULTS: Fourteen clinical trials with 574 participants were included. When recruitment maneuvers (RM) vs Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were compared, RM resulted in better oxygenation p = 0.03 (MD 79.93), higher plateau pressure p < 0.00001 (MD 7.30), higher mean airway pressure p < 0.00001 (MD 6.61), and higher compliance p < 0.00001 (MD 21.00); when comparing RM + Zero end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP) vs RM + PEEP 5 or 10 cmH2O, RM associated with PEEP led to better oxygenation p = 0.001 (MD 167.00); when comparing Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) 40 cmH2O + PEEP 10 cmH2O vs CPAP 40 cmH2O + PEEP 15 cmH2O, CPAP 40 + PEEP 15 achieved better gas exchange p = 0.003 (MD 36.00) and compliance p = 0.0003 (MD 3.00). CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that the alveolar recruitment maneuvers associated with PEEP lead to better oxygenation and higher compliance. There is no evidence of differences between pressure control ventilation (PCV) and Volume control ventilation (VCV).

Obesity is a global epidemic that causes major economic, social and psychological impacts [1] . Body mass index (BMI) values above 30 Kg/m [2] can result in a reduction in life expectancy similar to that caused by smoking [2, 3] . Bariatric surgery is an effective intervention against weight gain and the majority of people who undergo such surgery show an improvement in, or the resolution of, conditions such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension and obstructive sleep apnaea [4] .

The growing number of bariatric surgeries highlights the importance of invasive ventilator support. Anesthetic induction in obese patients can result in a significant reduction in respiratory compliance and increase resistance and pressure in the airway [5] . A correlation has also been found between a high BMI and an increase in breathing effort and a reduction in oxygenation levels, which may lead to atelectasis and slower weaning from mechanical ventilation [6, 7] .

To date, no standard ventilation strategy has been established for obese patients, although there is some evidence that recruitment maneuvers (RM) combined with Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) improves oxygenation and compliance in comparison with other strategies [8] . A systematic review can therefore make a significant contribution to the decision-making process of healthcare professionals, particularly surgeons and anesthesiologists, when choosing the best ventilation strategy during the surgery and anesthesia of obese patients, with the aim of reducing complications, costs and mortality.

To assess the effectiveness and safety of different ventilation strategies for obese participants undergoing bariatric surgery under general anesthesia.

The methodology described by the Cochrane Collaboration was employed in this systematic review [9] . This research was approved by the ethics committee of the federal university of São Paulo -Unifesp -CAAE: 57099216.0.0000.5505.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated different ventilation strategies for obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery, under general anesthesia, regardless of age and gender, were included.

Obesity was defined as BMI greater than 30 Kg/m 2 [10] . Primary outcomes: in hospital mortality, adequacy of intra-operative gas exchange, pulmonary mechanics (plateau pressure, mean airway pressures, lung compliance and lung resistance) alteration.

Secondary outcomes: Intraoperative and postoperative respiratory complications such barotrauma, hemodynamic instability, pneumonia, atelectasis, reintubation, self-extubation and the need for noninvasive mechanical ventilation measured in hours or days; cardiovascular responses; need for hospitalization in the intensive care unit (ICU) and length of stay (LOS) in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU).

Searches (see attachment) were performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE via Ovid (1966 to present); old MEDLINE (1951 to present); and EMBASE via Ovid (January 1990 to present), without language or location restrictions. The highly sensitive Cochrane filter for randomized controlled trials was applied to the MEDLINE and EMBASE searches. Trial registers such as www.clinicaltrials.gov and the Current Controlled Clinical Trials Website (http://www.controlled-trials.com/) were also searched for ongoing trials.

Two authors (GMCS and SAZ) independently screened all the potential studies identified and coded them as 'retrieve' (eligible or potentially eligible/unclear) or 'do not retrieve'. The full-text reports/publications were then retrieved and two authors independently screened the full text and identified the studies for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or if required consultation with a third author. Duplicates were excluded and multiple reports of the same study were collated so that each study, rather than report, is the unit of interest in the review. The selection process was recorded in appropriate detail, as set out in the complete PRISMA flow diagram [11] .

The authors were contacted and additional details were requested. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or by involving a third author.

Risk of bias was assessed at study level using Cochrane's 'Risk of Bias' tool [12] . Two review authors (GMCS and SAZ) independently assessed the methodologic quality of each study included and resolved their disagreements by discussion.

To consider the measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes, the total number of events within each randomized group were entered and the risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. For data presented in other forms, such as odds or hazard ratios, the generic variance option was used, although different effect measures (odds, risk or hazard ratios) were not combined in the same model. Mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes measured on the same scale in different studies.

Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated by assessing forest plots and examining the I 2 value, which describes the proportion of total variation across studies caused by heterogeneity rather than chance [9] . An I 2 value greater than 50% was considered as the cut-off point to identify the presence of considerable heterogeneity [9] .

The initial search identified 1018 citations through database searches and manual searches (Fig. 1) . After screening by title and abstract, full-text articles of 40 studies that were potentially eligible for inclusion in the review were obtained. A total of 25 of these were excluded due to not being randomized, presenting data in graphs, did not present data for extraction or did not respond to the PICO of this review. Following this process, fourteen studies were included in the review ( Table 1) .

Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were correctly described in seven studies [14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25] . In the blinding of participants and personnel domain all the studies were classified as high risk as the personnel could not be blinded. Four studies [7, 13, 17, 25] adequately described the blinding of outcome assessment. Eleven studies [7, 14-21, 24, 25] did not describe losses or exclusions which could cause imbalance between the groups. Only two studies [17, 21] employed selective reporting and while two studies [17, 25] presented other sources of bias Fig. 2 .

Three studies [21, 23, 24] compared alveolar recruitment maneuvers (RM) versus PEEP to evaluate intra operative gas exchange, with the mean PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio found to be greater in the groups that underwent RM, p = 0.03, (MD 79.93, 95% CI 8.83 to 151.04; participants = 121; studies = 5; I 2 = 80%,). Figure 3 shows the comparison of three different studies, separate in four subgroups, where the best results were in favor of RM Fig. 3 .

Three studies [23] [24] [25] evaluated mean airway pressures by comparing RM with progressive PEEP of 10, 15 and 20 cmH 2 O versus Peep of 4 or 5 cmH 2 O only and found that the use of PEEP without RM led to lower airway pressure, p < 0.001 (MD 9.29, 95% CI 5.05 to 13.53; participants = 98; studies = 4; I 2 = 89%). Figure 4 shows the comparison of three different studies, separate in two subgroups, where the best results were in favor of PEEP when airway pressure was measured. Figure 4 .

Two studies [17, 21] evaluated compliance by comparing RM with PEEP. The study by Reinius et al. [21] compared 

Of the two included studies that evaluated this comparison [14, 16] , only the study by Cadi et al. [14] evaluated the PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio, finding that the PCV mode achieved greater oxygenation than the VCV mode, p = 0.007, (MD 82.00, 95% CI 21.90 to 142.10; participants = 36; studies = 1; I2 = 0%). The study by De Baerdemaeker et al. [16] did not identify differences in the variables analyzed. No differences were found between the VCV and PCV modes in the evaluation of mean airway pressure, plateau pressure, lung compliance, lung resistance and arterial pressure. When the two comparisons were pooled the shortest LOS in the PACU was found in the group that received RM plus PEEP, p = 0.01, (MD -15.89, 95% CI − 28.68 to − 3.10; participants = 77; studies = 2; I 2 = 0%).

The study by Talab et al. [7] compared RM with CPAP 40 cmH 2 O plus ZEEP versus RM with CPAP 40 cmH 2 O plus PEEP 10 cmH 2 O and found fewer patients with lamellar atelectasis in the group that received RM plus ZEEP, p = 0.007, (RR 5.22, 95% CI 1.33 to 20.55; participants = 39; The study by Mousa et al. [20] evaluated the I:E 1:1 ratio versus the I:E 1:2 ratio and found that the I:E 1: 1 ratio group achieved greater lung compliance than the group with a I:E 1:2 ratio, p = 0.01, (MD 4.67, 95% CI 1.06 to 8.28; participants = 30; studies = 1; I 2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).

The present systematic review evaluated different ventilatory strategies for obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery, such as: comparison between PCV and VCV; comparison of different forms of RM, different PEEP levels and comparison between I:E 1:1 ratio and I:E 2:2. Fourteen studies with a total of 574 participants were included.

Significant variability in interventions were found. This demonstrates the lack of consensus on how to ventilate obese patients undergoing surgery, corroborating a review published by Aldenkortt et al. [8] The main finding of the present study is the evidence that obese patients receiving mechanical ventilation benefit from RM, especially when combined with PEEP, as evidenced by improvements in oxygenation and respiratory compliance. While it was observed in this systematic review that the isolated use of PEEP was more effective when higher values were used, however the best result was the combination of the RM with higher levels of PEEP. In addition to these findings, no difference was found between VCV and PCV modes of ventilation in all analyzed outcomes, corroborating another study by Aldenkortt et al. [8] . No respiratory complications or major adverse events were reported in the studies included in this review. Such findings are similar to those found by Aldenkortt et al. [8] . and Hu et al. [26] . Recent guidelines regarding mechanical ventilation of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have shown that the incidence of complications associated with diferent mechanical ventilation strategies is low [27] .

There is insufficient evidence to support differences between VCV and PCV in the evaluated outcomes. While the study by Cadi et al. [14] . Showed that the pressure controlled mode led to a higher PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio than the volume controlled mode, the study by De Baerdemaeker et al. [16] . Did not identify a difference in PaO 2 between the two modes.

Three studies [17, 24, 25] included in this review describe the performance of more than one alveolar recruitment maneuver. There is no consensus on the ideal number of alveolar recruitment maneuvers regarding frequency and repetitions, however, the use of various maneuvers with patients with ARDS is associated with decreased pulmonary shunt and increased compliance [27] .

Despite the wide variety of interventions and outcomes evaluated, the present review provides some evidence that the use of PEEP effectively improves oxygenation and compliance of the respiratory system. Better results seem to be achieved, however, when it is combined with alveolar recruitment maneuvers, and the absence of adverse effects shows that it is an effective and safe strategy for obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Briel et al. [28] published a systematic review and metaanalysis comparing the use of high versus low PEEP values for ARDS patients, and concluded that the use of high levels of PEEP was associated with lower hospital mortality in this group of patients. The American Thoracic Society also currently recommends the use of high levels of PEEP for patients with ARDS [27] .

One study compared I:E 1:1 ratio with I:E 1:2 ratio and found that only the 1:1 ratio only improved lung compliance [20] . Few studies evaluated the use of the I:E 1:1 ratio, while some studies evaluated different inverted ratios in patients with ARDS, with conflicting results regarding its effectiveness [29] [30] [31] .

Limitations Important methodological limitations of the studies included reduced the certainty of the evidence offered by most of the included trials. Many of the trials were small and included different outcome measures, and selective outcome reporting was occasionally an issue.

The paucity of long-term follow-up data, the small sample sizes, and the heterogeneous nature of the measured outcomes limit the generalizability of the results.

There is evidence that alveolar recruitment maneuvers plus PEEP improve gas exchange with an increase in respiratory system compliance. The quality of such evidence is low, however.

There is no evidence to support that there is a difference between the volume and pressure controlled modes.

The various interventions assessed were shown to be safe with no major adverse events reported. 

World gastroenterology organization global guidelines on obesity

The Netherlands epidemiology and demography compression of morbidity research group. Obesity in adulthood and its consequences for life expectancy: a life-table analysis

Body-mass index and cause-specific mortality in 900000 adults: collaborative analyses of 57 prospective studies

Bariatric surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis

The impacts of super obesity versus morbid obesity on respiratory mechanics and simple hemodynamic parameters during bariatric surgery

The effects of body mass on lung volumes, respiratory mechanics, and gas exchange during general anesthesia

Intraoperative ventilatory strategies for prevention of pulmonar atelectasis in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery

Ventilation strategies in obese patients undergoing surgery: a quantitative systematic review and meta-analysis

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated

Bariatric Surgery in ClassI Obesity {accessed 21

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated

Use of positive pressure in pre and intraoperative of bariatric surgery and its effect on the time of extubation

Pressurecontrolled ventilation improves oxygenation during laparoscopic obesity surgery compared with volume-controlled ventilation

effect of vital capacity manoeuves on arterial oxygenation in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery

Comparison of volume-controlled and pressure-controlled ventilation during laparoscopic gastric banding in morbidly obese patients

Recruitment of lung volume during surgery neither affects the postoperative spirometry nor the risk of hypoxaemia after laparoscopic gastric bypass in morbidly obese patients: a randomized controlled study

Perioperative ventilatory strategies for improving arterial oxygenation and respiratory mechanics in morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery

Noninvasive ventilation and alveolar recruitment maneuver improve respiratory function during and after intubation of morbidly obese patients

Equal ratio ventilation (1:1) improves arterial oxygenation during laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a crossover study

Prevention of atelectasis in morbidly obese oatients during general anestesia and paralysis: a computerized tomography study

Impact of alveolar recruitment maneuver in the postoperative period of Videolaparoscopic bariatric surgery

Analysis of the effects of the alveolar recruitment maneuver on blood oxygenation during bariatric surgery

Alveolar recruitment and arterial Desflurance concentration during bariatric surgery

The effects of the alveolar recruitment maneuver and positive endexpiratory pressure on arterial oxygenation during laparoscopic bariatric surgery

Effective ventilation strategies for obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery a literature review: a literature review

An official American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guideline: mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Higher vs lower positive endexpiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis

Effects of pressurecontrolled with different I:E ratios versus volume-controlled ventilation on respiratory mechanics, gas exchange, and hemodynamics in patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome

Effects of inverse ratio ventilation versus positive end-expiratory pressure on gas exchange and gastric intramucosal PCO2 and pH under constant mean airway pressure in acute respiratory distress syndrome

Improved oxygenation and lower peak airway pressure in severe adult respiratory distress syndrome: treatment with inverse ratio ventilation

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations

This research was partially supported by governmental foundation Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES). We are grateful to Universidade Estadual de Ciências da Saúde de Alagoas (UNCISAL) for the institutional support. We are thankful to our colleague Dr. Alvaro Atallah who provided expertise that greatly assisted this systematic review.Authors' contributions GMCS -corresponding author and major reseacher. GMSstatistician expert. SAZ -second researcher for data extraction. TM -methodology expert. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

This research was partially supported by governmental foundation Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) which is a government agency. The funding was used for articles translation to Portuguese. Theare were no role of the funding body in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data.Availability of data and materials Not applicable. All data from this systematic review were extracted from primary studies. The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. 

Not applicable.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.