Loading clinical trials...
Loading clinical trials...
Showing 1-5 of 5 trials
NCT07186933
The goal of this clinical trial is to compare two different types of perioperative mechanical ventilation (MV), specifically Protective Mechanical Ventilation (PMV) and MV with the lowest possible Driving Pressure (ΔP), in relation to the appearance of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in adult patients who are operated and have higher risk of PPCs. The main questions it aims to answer are: * Is MV with lower ΔP better than conventional PMV in preventing PPCs in patients with higher risk for PPCs? * Does MV with lower ΔP decrease hospital stay, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) need and mortality? * Does MV with lower ΔP suit better than PMV to lung characteristics and needs intraoperatively? Researchers will compare MV with the lowest possible Driving Pressure (ΔP) to Protective Mechanical Ventilation (PMV) to see if any of this is more protective than the other concerning PPCs. All participants will receive perioperative MV. Half of them will receive conventional Protective Mechanical Ventilation (PMV). This will include well known generally protective settings for mechanical ventilation of patients, concerning volumes, pressures, respiratory rate, inspiratory gases and ventilation maneuvers. The rest of participants will be ventilated with the lowest possible Driving Pressure (ΔP). This will be similar to PMV in the chosen volumes, respiratory rate, inspiratory gases and ventilation maneuvers. However, the pressure inside lung at the end of expiration, eg Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP), will be not be preset for every patient. Initially, the investigators will perform a maneuver that will quantify each individual's lung characteristics and mechanics. According to this, the investigators will find the exact PEEP that seems to suit each patients lungs most, and use this perioperatively, trying to provide lungs the best conditions every time. After the completion of the operation, all the patients will be screened for PPCs, via arterial blood testing and chest X ray, and the results will be statistically analyzed trying to find if any of the forementioned strategies of mechanical ventilation surpasses the other concerning PPCs appearance. PPCs include atelectasis, respiratory failure, bronchospasm, pleural effusion, pneumonia, aspiration and pneumothorax. Furthermore hospital stay, ICU need and mortality will be noted. Finally, measurements of perioperative lung pressures, volumes and derived variables will be noted and compared statistically as well.
NCT07186920
Brief summary The goal of this clinical trial is to compare two different types of perioperative mechanical ventilation (MV), specifically Protective Mechanical Ventilation (PMV) and MV with the lowest possible Driving Pressure (ΔP), in relation to the appearance of postoperative lung closing, eg atelectasis, in adult patients who are operated. Atelectasis will be evaluated via lung ultrasound. The main questions it aims to answer are: * Is MV with lower ΔP better than conventional PMV in keeping lungs more open perioperatively and immediately postoperatively? * Does MV with lower ΔP decrease hospital stay, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) need and mortality? Researchers will use lung ultrasound to compare MV with the lowest possible Driving Pressure (ΔP) to Protective Mechanical Ventilation (PMV) to see if any of this is more protective than the other concerning lung atelectasis. All participants will receive perioperative MV. Half of them will receive conventional Protective Mechanical Ventilation (PMV). This will include well known generally protective settings for mechanical ventilation of patients, concerning volumes, pressures, respiratory rate, inspiratory gases and ventilation maneuvers. The rest of participants will be ventilated with the lowest possible Driving Pressure (ΔP). This will be similar to PMV in the chosen volumes, respiratory rate, inspiratory gases and ventilation maneuvers. However, the pressure inside lung at the end of expiration, eg Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP), will be not be preset for every patient. Initially, we will perform a maneuver that will quantify each individual's lung characteristics and mechanics. According to this, we will find the exact PEEP that seems to suit each patients lungs most, and use this perioperatively, trying to provide lungs the best conditions every time. After the completion of the operation, all the patients will be screened for atelectasis, via lung ultrasound, using a well established protocol for the quantification of atelectasis. The results will be statistically analyzed trying to find if any of the forementioned strategies of mechanical ventilation surpasses the other concerning atelectasis appearance. Furthermore efficiency of lung oxygen absorption, hospital stay, ICU need and mortality will be noted.
NCT06072885
Laparoscopic surgeries require carbon-dioxide into the abdomen which may occasionally lead to atelectasis. The extent of this atelectasis is not well documented in peri-operative period although it has been extensively researched in critical care set up. In this study, it is aimed to observe the ultrasonographic condition of lungs in laparoscopic pediatric surgeries. The hypothesis was the Lung Ultrasound Scores would worsen in those surgeries by the end of the operation. Aged between 1-18 years pediatric patients who are scheduled for laparoscopic surgeries will be included in the study to observe the changes in the lung visuals throughout the operation. For that, after safe endotracheal intubation first ultrasonography will be performed for the first (T1) time, and the second ultrasonography will be performed once the surgery is finished and before extubation (T2). Lastly, the third evaluation will be performed after 30 minutes in post anesthesia care unit (T3). Lung Ultrasound Score (LUS) is calculated as follows: Both hemi-thoraxes are divided into 6 different zones, and depending on the number of B-lines, which happens due to aeration loss in lung tissue, every zone is scored. If there is no B-line, it is zero points. If the B-lines in the visual lower than 4, the area is scored as 1 point. The areas with B-lines more than 3 is scored as 2 points. Furthermore, if there is any disruption on the pleural face, then the area is scored as 3 points. Accordingly, the worst case scenario refers 36 points, meaning the less the points the better the lung aeration. Primary outcome is defined as T2 LUS which will show the actual condition of at the end of the surgery. For that, T1 scores and T2 scores will be compared. The secondary outcomes include T3 LUS, (T3-T1)LUS, intraoperative hemodynamics, length of stay in Post Anesthesia Care Unite, postoperative aldrete scores for discharging to ward, and intraoperative ventilation variables.
NCT02077842
The purpose of this study is to determine whether prophylactic nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) improves post-operative pulmonary function following elective bowel surgery. The investigators hypothesize that one hour of nCPAP in the PACU will result in a higher partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) when compared to the standard treatment of low flow oxygen applied by face mask.
NCT02355405
Lung ultrasound offers a novel, reliable and radiation-free tool for diagnosing perioperative atelectasis and evaluating its severity in adult patients undergoing general anesthesia in the operating room.