Comparison of Volume-Guaranteed or -Targeted, Pressure-Controlled Ventilation with Volume-Controlled Ventilation during Elective Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Volker Schick; Fabian Dusse; Ronny Eckardt; Steffen Kerkhoff; Simone Commotio; Jochen Hinkelbein; Alexander Mathes

doi:10.3390/jcm10061276

Comparison of Volume-Guaranteed or -Targeted, Pressure-Controlled Ventilation with Volume-Controlled Ventilation during Elective Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

J Clin Med. 2021 Mar 19;10(6):1276. doi: 10.3390/jcm10061276.

Authors

Volker Schick¹, Fabian Dusse¹, Ronny Eckardt¹, Steffen Kerkhoff¹, Simone Commotio¹, Jochen Hinkelbein¹, Alexander Mathes¹

Affiliation

¹ Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital and Medical Faculty, Cologne University, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.

Abstract

For perioperative mechanical ventilation under general anesthesia, modern respirators aim at combining the benefits of pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) and volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) in modes typically named "volume-guaranteed" or "volume-targeted" pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV-VG). This systematic review and meta-analysis tested the hypothesis that PCV-VG modes of ventilation could be beneficial in terms of improved airway pressures (P_peak, P_plateau, P_mean), dynamic compliance (C_dyn), or arterial blood gases (P_aO₂, P_aCO₂) in adults undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia. Three major medical electronic databases were searched with predefined search strategies and publications were systematically evaluated according to the Cochrane Review Methods. Continuous variables were tested for mean differences using the inverse variance method and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Based on the assumption that intervention effects across studies were not identical, a random effects model was chosen. Assessment for heterogeneity was performed with the χ² test and the I² statistic. As primary endpoints, P_peak, P_plateau, P_mean, C_dyn, P_aO₂, and P_aCO₂ were evaluated. Of the 725 publications identified, 17 finally met eligibility criteria, with a total of 929 patients recruited. Under supine two-lung ventilation, PCV-VG resulted in significantly reduced P_peak (15 studies) and P_plateau (9 studies) as well as higher C_dyn (9 studies), compared with VCV [random effects models; P_peak: CI -3.26 to -1.47; p < 0.001; I² = 82%; P_plateau: -3.12 to -0.12; p = 0.03; I² = 90%; C_dyn: CI 3.42 to 8.65; p < 0.001; I² = 90%]. For one-lung ventilation (8 studies), PCV-VG allowed for significantly lower P_peak and higher P_aO₂ compared with VCV. In Trendelenburg position (5 studies), this effect was significant for P_peak only. This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that volume-targeting, pressure-controlled ventilation modes may provide benefits with respect to the improved airway dynamics in two- and one-lung ventilation, and improved oxygenation in one-lung ventilation in adults undergoing elective surgery.

Keywords: PCV-VG; anesthesia; auto-flow; perioperative; pressure controlled ventilation; surgery; volume controlled ventilation; volume guarantee; volume target.

Publication types

Review