Respiratory MechanicsNCT03335449
Effects on Respiratory Mechanics of Two Different Ventilation Strategies During Robotic-Gynecological Surgery
A study testing Protective ventilation group in people with Respiratory Mechanics and Mechanical Ventilation Complication, run by SPINAZZOLA GIORGIA.
Trial summary
This Randomized controlled clinical study, entitled "Effects on Respiratory mechanics of two different ventilation strategies during Robotic- Gynecological surgery", is an original paper. The study was performed in Rome, Italy, from September 2014 to September 2015. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Respiratory Mechanics, Mechanical Ventilation Complication
- What is being tested?
- Protective ventilation group
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Sep 2014to 30 Dec 2015
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Gynecological cancer elegible for laparoscopic surgery
Who cannot join
- Respiratory disease
- Obesity
About this study
This Randomized controlled clinical study, entitled "Effects on Respiratory mechanics of two different ventilation strategies during Robotic- Gynecological surgery", is an original paper. The study was performed in Rome, Italy, from September 2014 to September 2015.
Nowadays several studies evaluated the effects of "open lung strategy" and the positive effect of Recruitment Maneuvers and Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) application during general anesthesia, especially during open abdominal surgery and in elderly patients.
This is the first study aimed at evaluating two different ventilation strategies in healthy respiratory women undergoing Robotic surgery. In particular, the investigators evaluated the effects of protective ventilation strategy on respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and post-operative respiratory complications compared to standard ventilation.
Read the detailed description
The ventilation protocol consisted in volume-controlled mechanical ventilation through Ventilator, inspiratory to expiratory ratio of 1:2, and a respiratory rate adjusted to normocapnia (end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure between 30 and 40 mmHg). The were randomly assigned to Standard (SV) or Protective (PV) group.
participants in the SV group received a Tidal Volume (Vt) of 10 ml/kg of Ideal Body Weight (IBW) and a PEEP of 5 cmH2O, the participants in the PV group a Vt of 6 ml/kg of IBW and a PEEP of 8-10 cmH2O, associated to recruitment maneuvers (RMs).
RMs were performed only in hemodynamic stable conditions and at pre-set moments: after the induction of anesthesia, after any disconnection from the mechanical ventilator, each hour during the surgical procedures and immediately before extubation. RMs were performed in Pressure Control mode as follows: the limit of peak inspiratory pressure was set at 45 cmH2O and the pressure control was set at 30 cmH2O, therefore three consecutive thirty seconds lasting inspiratory pauses were performed. At the end of RMs, respiratory rate, inspiratory to expiratory ratio, inspiratory pause, and Vt were set back at values preceding the RMs.
Air Flow (V') was measured with a heated pneumotachograph, inserted between the Y-piece of the ventilator circuit and the endotracheal tube. The pneumotachograph was linear over the experimental range of flow. Volume was obtained by numerical integration of the flow signal. Airway pressure (Paw) was measured proximal to the endotracheal tube with a pressure transducer with a differential pressure of ± 100 cm H2O. The end-inspiratory and end-expiratory occlusions were performed through specific maneuver of ventilator.
Following end-inspiratory occlusion there is an immediate drop of the airway pressure from a maximal value (Pmax) to airway pressure at zero flow (P1), followed by a further decrease to plateau pressure (P2). The plateau pressure usually arrived within 3 seconds. Therefore, airway pressure 3 seconds after occlusion was taken as the static end-inspiratory elastic recoil pressure (P2) of the respiratory system. The use of the interrupter method for the measurement of respiratory mechanics allows possible quantification of the airway and viscoelastic properties of the respiratory system. The difference between Pmax and P1 divided by flow provides major information about minimal airway resistance (Rmin), while the difference between P1 and P2 (ΔP) divided by flow stands for viscoelastic resistance or Pendelluft effect of the respiratory system (ΔR). Maximal respiratory resistance (Rmax) is the sum of Rmin and ΔR. The inspiratory volume divided by P2- Total PEEP yields respiratory system compliance. Mechanical respiratory measurements and arterial blood gases were performed immediately after intubation, after pneumoperitoneum (AP), every hour during the procedure and before extubation (Ext). A further arterial blood gas sample was analyzed 1 hour after extubation.
The day after the surgical procedure, clinical patient examination and chest x ray were performed, in order to detect eventual pulmonary adverse events.
- Being tested
- Protective ventilation group
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Protective ventilation groupOther
Also called Low tidal volume, high PEEP and recruitment maneuvers
Application of a protective ventilation strategy in order to improve gas exchange and respiratory mechanics during Robotic surgery in deep Trendelenburg position.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Protective ventilation group | Experimental | Protective ventilation (PV group) (Vt 6 ml/Kg of ideal body weight, PEEP 8-10 cmH 2 O and repeated recruitment maneuvers. Receives: Other: Protective ventilation group |
| Standard ventilation group | No intervention | Standard ventilation (SV group) (Tidal Volume, Vt 10 ml/Kg of ideal body weight, Positive End Expiratory Pressure, PEEP 5 cmH 2 O, no recruitment maneuvers) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Respiratory Compliance
inspiratory Volume/Plateau Pressure-PEEP (ml/cmH2O)
Measured: One year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Nov 2017
- Study start1 Sep 2014
- Primary completion1 Oct 2015
- Study completion30 Dec 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Respiratory MechanicsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Care provider
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- SPINAZZOLA GIORGIA
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, SPINAZZOLA GIORGIA, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03335449
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 10398/14
- Status last verified
- Sep 2021
- First submitted
- 25 Oct 2017
- Last updated
- 6 Oct 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Serpa Neto A, Cardoso SO, Manetta JA, Pereira VG, Esposito DC, Pasqualucci Mde O, Damasceno MC, Schultz MJ. Association between use of lung-protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes and clinical outcomes among patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2012 Oct 24;308(16):1651-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.13730.
PubMed 23093163Valenza F, Chevallard G, Fossali T, Salice V, Pizzocri M, Gattinoni L. Management of mechanical ventilation during laparoscopic surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2010 Jun;24(2):227-41. doi: 10.1016/j.bpa.2010.02.002.
PubMed 20608559Fahy BG, Barnas GM, Flowers JL, Nagle SE, Njoku MJ. The effects of increased abdominal pressure on lung and chest wall mechanics during laparoscopic surgery. Anesth Analg. 1995 Oct;81(4):744-50. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199510000-00015.
PubMed 7574004Perilli V, Sollazzi L, Bozza P, Modesti C, Chierichini A, Tacchino RM, Ranieri R. The effects of the reverse trendelenburg position on respiratory mechanics and blood gases in morbidly obese patients during bariatric surgery. Anesth Analg. 2000 Dec;91(6):1520-5. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200012000-00041.
PubMed 11094011Maracaja-Neto LF, Vercosa N, Roncally AC, Giannella A, Bozza FA, Lessa MA. Beneficial effects of high positive end-expiratory pressure in lung respiratory mechanics during laparoscopic surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009 Feb;53(2):210-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01826.x.
PubMed 19175578Talab HF, Zabani IA, Abdelrahman HS, Bukhari WL, Mamoun I, Ashour MA, Sadeq BB, El Sayed SI. Intraoperative ventilatory strategies for prevention of pulmonary atelectasis in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Anesth Analg. 2009 Nov;109(5):1511-6. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181ba7945.
PubMed 19843790
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 6 Oct 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects on Respiratory Mechanics of Two Different Ventilation Strategies During Robotic-Gynecological Surgery
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03335449
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 10398/14
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- SPINAZZOLA GIORGIAUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Sep 2014 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Oct 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Dec 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Nov 2017 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This Randomized controlled clinical study, entitled "Effects on Respiratory mechanics of two different ventilation strategies during Robotic- Gynecological surgery", is an original paper. The study was performed in Rome, Italy, from September 2014 to September 2015.
Nowadays several studies evaluated the effects of "open lung strategy" and the positive effect of Recruitment Maneuvers and Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) application during general anesthesia, especially during open abdominal surgery and in elderly patients.
This is the first study aimed at evaluating two different ventilation strategies in healthy respiratory women undergoing Robotic surgery. In particular, the investigators evaluated the effects of protective ventilation strategy on respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and post-operative respiratory complications compared to standard ventilation.
Detailed description
The ventilation protocol consisted in volume-controlled mechanical ventilation through Ventilator, inspiratory to expiratory ratio of 1:2, and a respiratory rate adjusted to normocapnia (end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure between 30 and 40 mmHg). The were randomly assigned to Standard (SV) or Protective (PV) group.
participants in the SV group received a Tidal Volume (Vt) of 10 ml/kg of Ideal Body Weight (IBW) and a PEEP of 5 cmH2O, the participants in the PV group a Vt of 6 ml/kg of IBW and a PEEP of 8-10 cmH2O, associated to recruitment maneuvers (RMs).
RMs were performed only in hemodynamic stable conditions and at pre-set moments: after the induction of anesthesia, after any disconnection from the mechanical ventilator, each hour during the surgical procedures and immediately before extubation. RMs were performed in Pressure Control mode as follows: the limit of peak inspiratory pressure was set at 45 cmH2O and the pressure control was set at 30 cmH2O, therefore three consecutive thirty seconds lasting inspiratory pauses were performed. At the end of RMs, respiratory rate, inspiratory to expiratory ratio, inspiratory pause, and Vt were set back at values preceding the RMs.
Air Flow (V') was measured with a heated pneumotachograph, inserted between the Y-piece of the ventilator circuit and the endotracheal tube. The pneumotachograph was linear over the experimental range of flow. Volume was obtained by numerical integration of the flow signal. Airway pressure (Paw) was measured proximal to the endotracheal tube with a pressure transducer with a differential pressure of ± 100 cm H2O. The end-inspiratory and end-expiratory occlusions were performed through specific maneuver of ventilator.
Following end-inspiratory occlusion there is an immediate drop of the airway pressure from a maximal value (Pmax) to airway pressure at zero flow (P1), followed by a further decrease to plateau pressure (P2). The plateau pressure usually arrived within 3 seconds. Therefore, airway pressure 3 seconds after occlusion was taken as the static end-inspiratory elastic recoil pressure (P2) of the respiratory system. The use of the interrupter method for the measurement of respiratory mechanics allows possible quantification of the airway and viscoelastic properties of the respiratory system. The difference between Pmax and P1 divided by flow provides major information about minimal airway resistance (Rmin), while the difference between P1 and P2 (ΔP) divided by flow stands for viscoelastic resistance or Pendelluft effect of the respiratory system (ΔR). Maximal respiratory resistance (Rmax) is the sum of Rmin and ΔR. The inspiratory volume divided by P2- Total PEEP yields respiratory system compliance. Mechanical respiratory measurements and arterial blood gases were performed immediately after intubation, after pneumoperitoneum (AP), every hour during the procedure and before extubation (Ext). A further arterial blood gas sample was analyzed 1 hour after extubation.
The day after the surgical procedure, clinical patient examination and chest x ray were performed, in order to detect eventual pulmonary adverse events.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind (care provider)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Protective ventilation group | Experimental | Other: Protective ventilation groupProtective ventilation (PV group) (Vt 6 ml/Kg of ideal body weight, PEEP 8-10 cmH 2 O and repeated recruitment maneuvers. |
| Standard ventilation group | No intervention | –Standard ventilation (SV group) (Tidal Volume, Vt 10 ml/Kg of ideal body weight, Positive End Expiratory Pressure, PEEP 5 cmH 2 O, no recruitment maneuvers) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Gynecological cancer elegible for laparoscopic surgery
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Respiratory disease
- Obesity
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Protective ventilation groupAlso: Low tidal volume, high PEEP and recruitment maneuversApplication of a protective ventilation strategy in order to improve gas exchange and respiratory mechanics during Robotic surgery in deep Trendelenburg position. | Other | Protective ventilation group |
Primary outcome
Respiratory Compliance
Time frame: One year
inspiratory Volume/Plateau Pressure-PEEP (ml/cmH2O)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 6 Oct 2021.
- Background: PubMed 23093163Serpa Neto A, Cardoso SO, Manetta JA, Pereira VG, Esposito DC, Pasqualucci Mde O, Damasceno MC, Schultz MJ. Association between use of lung-protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes and clinical outcomes among patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2012 Oct 24;308(16):1651-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.13730.
- Background: PubMed 20608559Valenza F, Chevallard G, Fossali T, Salice V, Pizzocri M, Gattinoni L. Management of mechanical ventilation during laparoscopic surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2010 Jun;24(2):227-41. doi: 10.1016/j.bpa.2010.02.002.
- Background: PubMed 7574004Fahy BG, Barnas GM, Flowers JL, Nagle SE, Njoku MJ. The effects of increased abdominal pressure on lung and chest wall mechanics during laparoscopic surgery. Anesth Analg. 1995 Oct;81(4):744-50. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199510000-00015.
- Background: PubMed 11094011Perilli V, Sollazzi L, Bozza P, Modesti C, Chierichini A, Tacchino RM, Ranieri R. The effects of the reverse trendelenburg position on respiratory mechanics and blood gases in morbidly obese patients during bariatric surgery. Anesth Analg. 2000 Dec;91(6):1520-5. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200012000-00041.
- Background: PubMed 19175578Maracaja-Neto LF, Vercosa N, Roncally AC, Giannella A, Bozza FA, Lessa MA. Beneficial effects of high positive end-expiratory pressure in lung respiratory mechanics during laparoscopic surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009 Feb;53(2):210-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01826.x.
- Background: PubMed 19843790Talab HF, Zabani IA, Abdelrahman HS, Bukhari WL, Mamoun I, Ashour MA, Sadeq BB, El Sayed SI. Intraoperative ventilatory strategies for prevention of pulmonary atelectasis in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Anesth Analg. 2009 Nov;109(5):1511-6. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181ba7945.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Respiratory Mechanics
Recruiting
REspiratory MEchanics for Delivering Individualised Exogenous Surfactant
Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Premature Infant
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Effects of Trendelenburg Position and Pneumoperitoneum on Mechanical Power and Respiratory Mechanics During V-NOTES Surgery
Vnotes, Respiratory Mechanics
Recruiting
Ventilator Pressure and Optimization of Compliance and Hemodynamics
Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia, Pulmonary Hypertension Due to Lung Diseases and Hypoxia
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Intra-Abdominal Pressure, Respiratory Mechanics, and Ventilator Liberation After Emergency Major Laparotomy
Intra-Abdominal Hypertension, Respiratory Mechanics
Not yet recruiting
Bedside Assessment of Right Ventricular Output Lying in Prone Or Supine
Right Ventricular Function, Prone Position
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Protective ventilation group in people with Respiratory Mechanics and Mechanical Ventilation Complication, run by SPINAZZOLA GIORGIA.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 6 Oct 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Respiratory Compliance (time frame: One year). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03335449, which also lists 6 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 6 Oct 2021.