95% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
CLINICAL TRIAL article
Front. Med.
Sec. Intensive Care Medicine and Anesthesiology
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1573150
This article is part of the Research Topic Mechanisms and Interventions for Post-Operative Neurocognitive Disorder and Sleep Disruptions View all 10 articles
Individualized Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Guided by Driving Pressure in Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Provisionally accepted- Cancer Hospital, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China
Background: Despite the widespread use of lung-protective ventilation in general anesthesia, the optimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) remains uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the effects of driving pressure-guided individualized PEEP in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Methods: Forty-two male patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were randomized to receive conventional fixed PEEP of 5 cmH2O (n = 21, PEEP5) or driving pressure-guided individualized PEEP (n = 21, PEEPIND). The primary outcome was the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2). The secondary outcomes included respiratory mechanics, hemodynamics, optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD), and the incidence of postoperative delirium (POD) and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) within a 7-day period. Results: In comparison with the PEEP5 group, the PEEPIND group showed significantly higher (P < 0.001) PEEP values during pneumoperitoneum in the Trendelenburg position (mean [standard deviation], 11.29 cmH2O [1.01 cmH2O]) and after deflation and repositioning to the supine position (mean [standard deviation], 7.05 cmH2O [1.20 cmH2O]). The PaO2/FiO2 values in the PEEPIND group were significantly higher than those in the PEEP5 group 120 min after pneumoperitoneum in the Trendelenburg position (P = 0.023) and at the end of the operation (P = 0.028). The groups showed no differences in ONSD, hemodynamics, and incidence of POD and PPCs (P > 0.05). Conclusion: In comparison with a fixed PEEP of 5 cmH2O, driving pressure-guided individualized PEEP improves intraoperative respiratory mechanics and oxygenation without causing deterioration in hemodynamics, further escalation in intracranial pressure, or an increase in the incidence of POD. Nevertheless, this procedure requires meticulous monitoring. Unfortunately, individualized PEEP did not result in a reduction in the incidence of PPCs in this study.
Keywords: Positive end-expiratory pressure, Driving pressure, Pulmonary Gas Exchange, lung protection ventilation, Intracranial Hypertension, postoperative delirium, Radical Prostatectomy
Received: 08 Feb 2025; Accepted: 02 Apr 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Jiang, Luo, Qin, Shen, Liu and An. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Yan Jiang, Cancer Hospital, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China
Ran An, Cancer Hospital, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.