AnesthesiaOPTIPRONENCT04024410
Optimal Positive End-expiratory Pressure (PEEP) in Prone Position During Spine Surgery
An observational study of Anesthesia and Surgery, run by Parc de Salut Mar at 1 site in Spain.
Trial summary
Background: There is a lack of studies regarding Optimal (best) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in prone position during surgery, and its relation with optimal PEEP in supine position. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Anesthesia, Surgery
- What is being tested?
- Evaluation of PEEP in prone position
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSpain
- Study dates
- 3 Jun 2019to 22 Feb 2021
- Phase
- Observational
- 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
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients scheduled for spine surgery that requires prone decubitus.
Who may be able to join
- Age ≥18 years.
- Spine prone surgery lasting ≥2 hours.
- Absence of known pulmonary pathology.
Who cannot join
- Pregnancy or lactation.
- Contraindication to alveolar recruitment maneuvers (risk of barotrauma, hemodynamic instability).
- Body mass index (BMI) >35.
- Heart failure defined as IC <2.5 L/min/m2 and/or inotropic support requirements prior to surgery.
- Diagnosis or suspicion of intracranial hypertension (intracranial pressure >15 mmHg).
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Optimal Positive End-expiratory Pressure (PEEP) in Prone Position During Spine Surgery. A Prospective Observational Study
Background:
There is a lack of studies regarding Optimal (best) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in prone position during surgery, and its relation with optimal PEEP in supine position.
Hypothesis:
In patients undergoing scheduled spinal surgery, optimal PEEP in the prone position is lower than optimal PEEP in the supine position.
Aims:
To assess the difference optimal PEEP in supine vs. prone positions in patients undergoing spine surgery.
To evaluate the changes in optimal PEEP in prone position throughout the surgical procedure.
Methods:
Observational study, one center. Main variable: optimal PEEP. Secondary variables: PaO2, pCO2 and dynamic compliance (Crd) in prone and supine position.
Read the detailed description
Recruitment: Patients scheduled for spine surgery were Main outcome: Optimal PEEP determined after a pulmonary recruitment manoeuvre in supine and in prone position and every hour during the surgery in prone position.
Secondary outcomes: Pulmonary compliance, blood gas analysis and hemodynamic parameters
- Conditions
- Anesthesia, Surgery
- Being tested
- Evaluation of PEEP in prone position
- Keywords
- prone position, anesthesia, general, end-expiratory pressure, positive, respiration, artificial
- Medical subject headings
- Respiratory Aspiration
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Evaluation of PEEP in prone positionOther
Assessment of optimal Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) in patients undergoing scheduled spine surgery in prone position.
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP)
Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (cmH2O) in supine position
Measured: 10 minutes after intubation
Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP)
Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (cmH2O) in prone position
Measured: 10 minutes after positioning
Change in Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP)
Variation of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (cmH2O) during surgery in prone position with respect to PEEP value at 10 minutes after positioning
Measured: From determination of optimal PEEP until the first hour and then every hour, assessed up to the end of surgery (maximum 6 hours)
Secondary outcomes (9)
Static compliance
Tidal volume / Plateau pressure ratio (mL/cmH2O) in supine position
Measured: 10 minutes after intubation
Static compliance
Tidal volume / Plateau pressure ratio (mL/cmH2O) in prone position
Measured: 10 minutes after positioning
Change in static compliance
Variation of static compliance (Tidal volume / Plateau pressure ratio, in mL/cmH2O) during surgery in prone position
Measured: Measured at the same time as Auto PEEP until the first hour and then every hour, assessed up to the end of surgery (maximum 6 hours)
Arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)
Partial pressure of oxygen (mmHg) in supine position
Measured: 10 minutes after intubation
Arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)
Partial pressure of oxygen (mmHg) in prone position
Measured: 10 minutes after positioning
Change in arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)
Variation of partial pressure of oxygen (mmHg) during surgery in prone position
Measured: Measured at the same time as Auto PEEP until the first hour and then every hour, assessed up to the end of surgery (maximum 6 hours)
Arterial carbon dioxide pressure (PaCO2)
Partial pressure of carbon dioxide (mmHg) in supine position
Measured: 10 minutes after intubation
Arterial carbon dioxide pressure (PaCO2)
Partial pressure of carbon dioxide (mmHg) in prone position
Measured: 10 minutes after positioning
Change in arterial carbon dioxide pressure (PaCO2)
Variation of partial pressure of carbon dioxide (mmHg) during surgery in prone position
Measured: Measured at the same time as Auto PEEP until the first hour and then every hour, assessed up to the end of surgery (maximum 6 hours)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted18 Jul 2019
- Study start3 Jun 2019
- Primary completion22 Feb 2021
- Study completion22 Feb 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (24)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for AnesthesiaStudies 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Parc de Salut Mar
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Lluís Gallart, Dr, Principal investigator, Hospital del Mar (Barcelona, Spain)
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04024410
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2018/8270/I
- Acronym
- OPTIPRONE
- Status last verified
- Jun 2019
- First submitted
- 27 Jun 2019
- Last updated
- 13 Oct 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Slutsky AS, Ranieri VM. Ventilator-induced lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 28;369(22):2126-36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1208707. No abstract available.
PubMed 24283226Canet J, Gallart L, Gomar C, Paluzie G, Valles J, Castillo J, Sabate S, Mazo V, Briones Z, Sanchis J; ARISCAT Group. Prediction of postoperative pulmonary complications in a population-based surgical cohort. Anesthesiology. 2010 Dec;113(6):1338-50. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181fc6e0a.
PubMed 21045639Serpa 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 23093163Duggan M, Kavanagh BP. Pulmonary atelectasis: a pathogenic perioperative entity. Anesthesiology. 2005 Apr;102(4):838-54. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200504000-00021.
PubMed 15791115Goldenberg NM, Steinberg BE, Lee WL, Wijeysundera DN, Kavanagh BP. Lung-protective ventilation in the operating room: time to implement? Anesthesiology. 2014 Jul;121(1):184-8. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000274. No abstract available.
PubMed 24781494Futier E, Constantin JM, Paugam-Burtz C, Pascal J, Eurin M, Neuschwander A, Marret E, Beaussier M, Gutton C, Lefrant JY, Allaouchiche B, Verzilli D, Leone M, De Jong A, Bazin JE, Pereira B, Jaber S; IMPROVE Study Group. A trial of intraoperative low-tidal-volume ventilation in abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med. 2013 Aug 1;369(5):428-37. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301082.
PubMed 23902482Coppola S, Froio S, Chiumello D. Protective lung ventilation during general anesthesia: is there any evidence? Crit Care. 2014 Mar 18;18(2):210. doi: 10.1186/cc13777. No abstract available.
PubMed 25029254Ladha K, Vidal Melo MF, McLean DJ, Wanderer JP, Grabitz SD, Kurth T, Eikermann M. Intraoperative protective mechanical ventilation and risk of postoperative respiratory complications: hospital based registry study. BMJ. 2015 Jul 14;351:h3646. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3646.
PubMed 26174419Hemmes SN, Serpa Neto A, Schultz MJ. Intraoperative ventilatory strategies to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications: a meta-analysis. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2013 Apr;26(2):126-33. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0b013e32835e1242.
PubMed 23385321Hemmes SN, Severgnini P, Jaber S, Canet J, Wrigge H, Hiesmayr M, Tschernko EM, Hollmann MW, Binnekade JM, Hedenstierna G, Putensen C, de Abreu MG, Pelosi P, Schultz MJ. Rationale and study design of PROVHILO - a worldwide multicenter randomized controlled trial on protective ventilation during general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery. Trials. 2011 May 6;12:111. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-111.
PubMed 21548927Gattinoni L, Caironi P. Prone positioning: beyond physiology. Anesthesiology. 2010 Dec;113(6):1262-4. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181fcd97e. No abstract available.
PubMed 21042196Pelosi P, Caironi P, Taccone P, Brazzi L. Pathophysiology of prone positioning in the healthy lung and in ALI/ARDS. Minerva Anestesiol. 2001 Apr;67(4):238-47.
PubMed 11376516Edgcombe H, Carter K, Yarrow S. Anaesthesia in the prone position. Br J Anaesth. 2008 Feb;100(2):165-83. doi: 10.1093/bja/aem380.
PubMed 18211991Mure M, Domino KB, Lindahl SG, Hlastala MP, Altemeier WA, Glenny RW; New Collective Author. Regional ventilation-perfusion distribution is more uniform in the prone position. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2000 Mar;88(3):1076-83. doi: 10.1152/jappl.2000.88.3.1076.
PubMed 10710406Pelosi P, Croci M, Calappi E, Cerisara M, Mulazzi D, Vicardi P, Gattinoni L. The prone positioning during general anesthesia minimally affects respiratory mechanics while improving functional residual capacity and increasing oxygen tension. Anesth Analg. 1995 May;80(5):955-60. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199505000-00017.
PubMed 7726438
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Oct 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Optimal Positive End-expiratory Pressure (PEEP) in Prone Position During Spine Surgery. A Prospective Observational Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04024410
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- OPTIPRONE / 2018/8270/I
- Conditions
- Anesthesia, Surgery
- Keywords
- prone position, anesthesia, general, end-expiratory pressure, positive, respiration, artificial
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Parc de Salut MarUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 3 Jun 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 22 Feb 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 22 Feb 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 18 Jul 2019 (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.
Background:
There is a lack of studies regarding Optimal (best) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in prone position during surgery, and its relation with optimal PEEP in supine position.
Hypothesis:
In patients undergoing scheduled spinal surgery, optimal PEEP in the prone position is lower than optimal PEEP in the supine position.
Aims:
To assess the difference optimal PEEP in supine vs. prone positions in patients undergoing spine surgery.
To evaluate the changes in optimal PEEP in prone position throughout the surgical procedure.
Methods:
Observational study, one center. Main variable: optimal PEEP. Secondary variables: PaO2, pCO2 and dynamic compliance (Crd) in prone and supine position.
Detailed description
Recruitment: Patients scheduled for spine surgery were Main outcome: Optimal PEEP determined after a pulmonary recruitment manoeuvre in supine and in prone position and every hour during the surgery in prone position.
Secondary outcomes: Pulmonary compliance, blood gas analysis and hemodynamic parameters
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients scheduled for spine surgery that requires prone decubitus.
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Age ≥18 years.
- Spine prone surgery lasting ≥2 hours.
- Absence of known pulmonary pathology.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Pregnancy or lactation.
- Contraindication to alveolar recruitment maneuvers (risk of barotrauma, hemodynamic instability).
- Body mass index (BMI) >35.
- Heart failure defined as IC <2.5 L/min/m2 and/or inotropic support requirements prior to surgery.
- Diagnosis or suspicion of intracranial hypertension (intracranial pressure >15 mmHg).
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of PEEP in prone positionAssessment of optimal Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) in patients undergoing scheduled spine surgery in prone position. | Other | – |
Primary outcome
Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP)
Time frame: 10 minutes after intubation
Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (cmH2O) in supine position
Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP)
Time frame: 10 minutes after positioning
Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (cmH2O) in prone position
Change in Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP)
Time frame: From determination of optimal PEEP until the first hour and then every hour, assessed up to the end of surgery (maximum 6 hours)
Variation of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (cmH2O) during surgery in prone position with respect to PEEP value at 10 minutes after positioning
9 secondary outcomes
Static compliance
Time frame: 10 minutes after intubation
Static compliance
Time frame: 10 minutes after positioning
Change in static compliance
Time frame: Measured at the same time as Auto PEEP until the first hour and then every hour, assessed up to the end of surgery (maximum 6 hours)
Arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)
Time frame: 10 minutes after intubation
Arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)
Time frame: 10 minutes after positioning
Change in arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)
Time frame: Measured at the same time as Auto PEEP until the first hour and then every hour, assessed up to the end of surgery (maximum 6 hours)
Arterial carbon dioxide pressure (PaCO2)
Time frame: 10 minutes after intubation
Arterial carbon dioxide pressure (PaCO2)
Time frame: 10 minutes after positioning
Change in arterial carbon dioxide pressure (PaCO2)
Time frame: Measured at the same time as Auto PEEP until the first hour and then every hour, assessed up to the end of surgery (maximum 6 hours)
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 13 Oct 2021.
- Background: PubMed 24283226Slutsky AS, Ranieri VM. Ventilator-induced lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 28;369(22):2126-36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1208707. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 21045639Canet J, Gallart L, Gomar C, Paluzie G, Valles J, Castillo J, Sabate S, Mazo V, Briones Z, Sanchis J; ARISCAT Group. Prediction of postoperative pulmonary complications in a population-based surgical cohort. Anesthesiology. 2010 Dec;113(6):1338-50. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181fc6e0a.
- 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 15791115Duggan M, Kavanagh BP. Pulmonary atelectasis: a pathogenic perioperative entity. Anesthesiology. 2005 Apr;102(4):838-54. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200504000-00021.
- Background: PubMed 24781494Goldenberg NM, Steinberg BE, Lee WL, Wijeysundera DN, Kavanagh BP. Lung-protective ventilation in the operating room: time to implement? Anesthesiology. 2014 Jul;121(1):184-8. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000274. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 23902482Futier E, Constantin JM, Paugam-Burtz C, Pascal J, Eurin M, Neuschwander A, Marret E, Beaussier M, Gutton C, Lefrant JY, Allaouchiche B, Verzilli D, Leone M, De Jong A, Bazin JE, Pereira B, Jaber S; IMPROVE Study Group. A trial of intraoperative low-tidal-volume ventilation in abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med. 2013 Aug 1;369(5):428-37. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301082.
- Background: PubMed 25029254Coppola S, Froio S, Chiumello D. Protective lung ventilation during general anesthesia: is there any evidence? Crit Care. 2014 Mar 18;18(2):210. doi: 10.1186/cc13777. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 26174419Ladha K, Vidal Melo MF, McLean DJ, Wanderer JP, Grabitz SD, Kurth T, Eikermann M. Intraoperative protective mechanical ventilation and risk of postoperative respiratory complications: hospital based registry study. BMJ. 2015 Jul 14;351:h3646. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3646.
- Background: PubMed 23385321Hemmes SN, Serpa Neto A, Schultz MJ. Intraoperative ventilatory strategies to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications: a meta-analysis. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2013 Apr;26(2):126-33. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0b013e32835e1242.
- Background: PubMed 21548927Hemmes SN, Severgnini P, Jaber S, Canet J, Wrigge H, Hiesmayr M, Tschernko EM, Hollmann MW, Binnekade JM, Hedenstierna G, Putensen C, de Abreu MG, Pelosi P, Schultz MJ. Rationale and study design of PROVHILO - a worldwide multicenter randomized controlled trial on protective ventilation during general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery. Trials. 2011 May 6;12:111. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-111.
- Background: PubMed 21042196Gattinoni L, Caironi P. Prone positioning: beyond physiology. Anesthesiology. 2010 Dec;113(6):1262-4. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181fcd97e. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 11376516Pelosi P, Caironi P, Taccone P, Brazzi L. Pathophysiology of prone positioning in the healthy lung and in ALI/ARDS. Minerva Anestesiol. 2001 Apr;67(4):238-47.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Anesthesia
Recruiting
Comparison of Spinal Anesthesia With Intrathecal Morphine Versus PENG Block With or Without Dexamethasone in Hip Arthroplasty
Arthropathy of Hip, Hip Osteoarthritis
RecruitingObservational study
Norepinephrine in the Management of General Anesthesia-Induced Arterial Hypotension in Chronic Heart Failure Patients
Hypotension
Not yet recruiting
Magnesium Sulphate as an Adjuvant in Combined Costoclavicular Block and Suprascapular Block Versus Interscalene Block for Ambulatory Shoulder Arthroscopy
Postoperative Pain, Shoulder Arthroscopy
RecruitingObservational study
COMparative Performance of General Purpose Models
Neurosurgical Patients
Active, not recruitingObservational study
The Effect of Magnesium on Post-spinal Headaches
Post-spinal Headache
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.
Lluís Gallart, Dr principal investigator
Hospital del Mar (Barcelona, Spain)
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Anesthesia and Surgery, run by Parc de Salut Mar at 1 site in Spain.
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 3 inclusion and 5 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 13 Oct 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Spain. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
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?
Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) (time frame: 10 minutes after intubation). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT04024410, which also lists 24 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 13 Oct 2021.