Thoughts on hyperoxia

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Don't want Urzuz to go it alone.

Having a low FiO2 only provides early recognition for some issues, but causes some issues b/c of low FiO2 (STEMI, etc).

Atelectasis is not a good reason for using low FiO2. If you believe that fully, then you should extubate your patients with a low FiO2 so they don't get atelectasis in PACU. I can do a good recruitment maneuver(s) prior to extubation. And the ventilators often supply a recruitment maneuver/sigh breath intraop.

"the brain goes soft before the lungs go stiff"
 
Last edited:
I extubate on 80% fio2 because that doesn't show much difference in atelectasis from 30%. So around 4 L o2 2 L air depending on minute ventilation. But there is a clear difference between 80 and 100 although whether it is clinically significant is questionable.
 
Don't want Urzuz to go it alone.

Having a low FiO2 only provides early recognition for some issues, but causes some issues b/c of low FiO2 (STEMI, etc).

Atelectasis is not a good reason for using low FiO2. If you believe that fully, then you should extubate your patients with a low FiO2 so they don't get atelectasis in PACU. I can do a good recruitment maneuver(s) prior to extubation. And the ventilators often supply a recruitment maneuver/sigh breath intraop.

"the brain goes soft before the lungs go stiff"

Not so sure high fio2 is helpful with a stemi, which israre to begin with.
 
Not so sure high fio2 is helpful with a stemi, which israre to begin with.
Corrects supply demand issues. Especially if incomplete occlusion. I would have been better to state any myocardial ischemia/infarction, but the point remains correct. My first step for treating any MI/STEMI is to give oxygen. That seems fairly straight forward medicine.

I'm not sure what you mean- STEMI is rare type of MI (not at all) or STEMI is rare intraop (we are talking about rare things as mentioned in above posts)?
 
Corrects supply demand issues. Especially if incomplete occlusion. I would have been better to state any myocardial ischemia/infarction, but the point remains correct. My first step for treating any MI/STEMI is to give oxygen. That seems fairly straight forward medicine.

It is actually not straightforward at all. Additional oxygen does NOT help in acute MI, and may be harmful.
 
Everything we are talking about is theoretical. It comes down to what you believe and what you would want for yourself if you were a patient. Even atelecasis under anesthesia, I believe there was a case series of volunteers under anesthesia way back in the day, they did CT scans on various FIO2 and those with higher FIO2 had more atelectasis. How much it is relevant if you do recruitment maneuvers etc, or if the patient just does some deep breaths in the PACU is debatable.

For me, I can see the risk of high FIO2, I believe in the extrapolated studies from post cardiac arrest, and although I don’t think it ultimately will ever be shown to be of harm or benefit in healthy surgical patient, I don’t routinely use high FIO2 because I believe it’s the right thing to do. I typically use 30-40% FIO2 unless on one lung or some high risk position or something.
 
It is actually not straightforward at all. Additional oxygen does NOT help in acute MI, and may be harmful.

Thanks for the information and discussion, but I still believe the goal is to give oxygen over not giving oxygen. Or to give oxygen versus avoiding the theoretical risk of hyperoxia. The evidence said there may not be evidence for giving oxygen. That does not mean there is evidence for not giving oxygen.

I will continue to advise placing oxygen on a patient with MI versus "take that oxygen off the patient having an MI".

*ADDENDUM* I read through the study you referenced more carefully. It doesn't seem to show what you purport it does (that oxygen is harmful for MI). It specifically removed patients that needed oxygen to ameliorate ischemic burden. And it was not powered enough to show that oxygen was or wasn't beneficial, much less that it was causing harm. I think it is a misrepresentation to state that oxygen does NOT help in AMI based on this study.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the information and discussion, but I still believe the goal is to give oxygen over not giving oxygen. Or to give oxygen versus avoiding the theoretical risk of hyperoxia. The evidence said there may not be evidence for giving oxygen. That does not mean there is evidence for not giving oxygen.

I will continue to advise placing oxygen on a patient with MI versus "take that oxygen off the patient having an MI".

*ADDENDUM* I read through the study you referenced more carefully. It doesn't seem to show what you purport it does (that oxygen is harmful for MI). It specifically removed patients that needed oxygen to ameliorate ischemic burden. And it was not powered enough to show that oxygen was or wasn't beneficial, much less that it was causing harm. I think it is a misrepresentation to state that oxygen does NOT help in AMI based on this study.
The study shows exactly what we are talking about, giving oxygen to an acute MI patient who is saturating well, therefor inducing hyperoxia rather than normoxia.
 
Corrects supply demand issues. Especially if incomplete occlusion. I would have been better to state any myocardial ischemia/infarction, but the point remains correct. My first step for treating any MI/STEMI is to give oxygen. That seems fairly straight forward medicine.

I'm not sure what you mean- STEMI is rare type of MI (not at all) or STEMI is rare intraop (we are talking about rare things as mentioned in above posts)?

True ST elevation MI is rare to see in the operative suite.
 
not enough data at the moment to swing one way or another in my opinion. it's just preference. each got their own reason to doing things that are more experience based and not evidence based.

personally i do run them hyperoxic, usually between 60 to 80% fio2. I can remember at least one case in the past year that definitely helped me. a VERY severe case of bronchospasm during a ENT procedure where CO2 waveform essentially went from normal to FLATLINE immediately. Vent also didnt read high pressures, more like low pressures (not sure why). had to stop the surgery, check for leak everywhere, didnt see one, meanwhile patient wasnt being ventilated. then i thought surgeons possibly knocked out the tube (no cautery during that portion of the case). Had to Relaryngoscope the patient to confirm the tube (not obvious due to large mass). then for whatever reason, i was finally able to build enough pressure in the bag to try to manually ventilate, but still no CO2. so had to get epinephrine, draw it up, dilute it and give it, and wait for the best while trying to ventilate. luckily was able to ventilate before patient desaturated much. if he was on Room air, wouldve significantly desatted and receive much more epi.

yes some of you may say 'you suck for not fixing the issue in THREE SECONDS', and ive seen plenty of very confident anesthesiologists who may say something like that, but i think in true crisis moments, WAY more time passes than you think/feel.
 
Only speaking as a CA-2, but my gut feeling is that paying attention to open lung ventilation intra-op is probably more important than FiO2. Personalizing PEEP is something that could probably be done more.
 
Username does not check out

Lol I still aggressively cut the FiO2 since it serves as an early warning system for me.

And I like encouraging HPV (I also run patients mildly hypercarbic).

But I think it’s just a thing I do and not something I say others *MUST* do.
 
Last edited:
Lol I still aggressively cut the FiO2 since it serves as an early warning system for me.

And I like encouraging HPV (I also run patients mildly hypercarbic).

But I think it’s just a thing I do and not something I say others *MUST* do.
Can you explain your logic for intentionally wanting to run patients hypercapnic and encourage HPV?
 
And I like encouraging HPV

Why do you want to give people genital warts?

Can you explain your logic for intentionally wanting to run patients hypercapnic

While not overtly hypercapnic, I like to run people on the higher end of normal - end tidal in the low 40’s.

A) It pushes the oxy-hgb dissoc. curve to the right. Maybe not clinically significant, but it makes me feel better.
B) Resp drive isn’t suppressed as much - I’ll use attempts to breathe to titrate opioids/relaxant.
 
Why do you want to give people genital warts?



While not overtly hypercapnic, I like to run people on the higher end of normal - end tidal in the low 40’s.

A) It pushes the oxy-hgb dissoc. curve to the right. Maybe not clinically significant, but it makes me feel better.
B) Resp drive isn’t suppressed as much - I’ll use attempts to breathe to titrate opioids/relaxant.
Fair enough. I follow the logic on increasing oxygen delivery to tissues. The 2nd part, I do at the end of a case, but if it's a long case my ETCO2 is usually mid 30s until approaching the end.
 
Why do you want to give people genital warts?



While not overtly hypercapnic, I like to run people on the higher end of normal - end tidal in the low 40’s.

A) It pushes the oxy-hgb dissoc. curve to the right. Maybe not clinically significant, but it makes me feel better.
B) Resp drive isn’t suppressed as much - I’ll use attempts to breathe to titrate opioids/relaxant.

Same. I think it's good for cerebral blood flow as well. I like the opioid wakeups, no bucking and they recover spontaneous breathing faster if the end tidal is higher. Run em on prop during case and switch to nitrous at the end. Then reverse when gas is basically off and watch the tv slowly come up. Extubate before stage 2 and they do beautifully.
 
Can you explain your logic for intentionally wanting to run patients hypercapnic and encourage HPV?

  • Increases CO (but likely not from increased inotropy)
  • May decrease PONV
  • Improved tissue oxygenation
  • Improved cerebral perfusion (anecdotally I've seen increases on NIRS monitors after targetting a higher ETCO2)
  • Don't need to wait as long to get them spontaneously breathing at end of case
  • Augmenting hypoxic vasoconstriction would help improve overall oxygenation; might not matter much in general but may help for OLV cases
Mild hypercapnia, so ETCO2 40-45 max. Unless patient is in RV failure or at risk for that, then of course I'm keeping PaO2 high and PaCO2 normal.

Biggest downside so far is having to really be on the ball with paralysis. Forcing me to check twitches more frequently, which isn't a bad thing as a resident.

As an aside I was reading the other day that there may be a role for targeted mild hypercarbia following cardiac arrest; potential for improved neurological outcomes.
 
The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Just a little oxygen to breathe as you go off to sleep...is it always a good idea?

Administration of oxygen 100% to patients before inducing anaesthesia provides a reserve of oxygen, mostly in the patient's functional residual capacity (FRC), to extend the time before hypoxia occurs, should there be difficulties achieving adequate ventilation after induction. Preoxygenation is now widely used, and in the operating theatres in which I work, the practice has extended beyond the anaesthetists to nursing staff and operating department practitioners, who now automatically apply a face mask to the patient while I administer the induction agents. An editorial in 2004 argued that routine preoxygenation ‘could be recommended to the profession regardless of the experience, expertise or grade of the practitioner, and mandated for trainees'.1 The author of this recommendation, and the enthusiastic theatre staff, all make the assumption that administering oxygen 100% is harmless. In his translation of the Hippocratic oath, Galen put great emphasis on the phrase primum non nocere (first, do no harm) and this tenet should be applied to the use of oxygen 100% before it becomes an accepted practice in all patients.

Oxygen toxicity has been known to occur for many decades. Despite ubiquitous and multiple cellular defence mechanisms, all mammals are sensitive to high concentrations of oxygen, with death occurring within a few days of exposure to oxygen 100%,2 although among mammalian species humans tolerate hyperoxia relatively well. The likelihood of toxicity is a function of both oxygen partial pressure and duration of exposure. Breathing oxygen 100% at one atmosphere absolute pressure for <12 h has no known detrimental effects in humans. Beyond 12 h, the classic symptoms of an urge to take deep breaths, chest pain, and cough occur, and after 24 h forced vital capacity is reduced, indicating early lung injury. In terms of causing pulmonary oxygen toxicity, preoxygenation in the anaesthetic room for 3&#8211;5 min is, therefore, harmless.
Indirect adverse effects of breathing oxygen 100% are far more applicable to anaesthetic practice. Atelectasis, or collapse of small regions of lung, occurs in a majority of patients having a general anaesthetic involving muscle relaxation and artificial ventilation.2 This results from changes in the shape of the chest wall, spine, and diaphragm, causing a reduction in FRC and the volume of specific areas of the chest, particularly in the dependent areas of lung and behind the diaphragm. Three mechanisms contribute to lung collapse. First, compression atelectasis occurs when lung regions are reduced in volume to such an extent that the air is effectively squeezed out. Secondly, absorption atelectasis when airway closure is followed by absorption of the gases distal to the airway leading to complete collapse of the alveoli. Thirdly, atelectasis may occur when airways are extremely narrow, but not closed, when the rate at which alveolar gas is absorbed into the blood exceeds the rate at which gas can flow through the narrow airway to replace it, accelerating airway closure and alveolar collapse. When breathing oxygen 100%, this is likely to occur in lung regions with a
f1.gif
/
f2.gif
ratio of <0.05.3 Using the multiple inert gas elimination technique, areas of lung with
f1.gif
/
f2.gif
ratios this low are easily demonstrated in the elderly when awake, and during general anaesthesia in patients of all ages. In vivo it is likely that all three mechanisms are at work simultaneously in different lung regions. In dependent regions behind the diaphragm, compression atelectasis will occur as a result of the weight of the abdominal contents in the absence of diaphragmatic muscle tone, a situation more likely to occur in obesity and in the presence of increased intra-abdominal pressure. In other dependent areas of the lung, the reduced FRC during anaesthesia will lead to resting lung volumes falling below the closing capacity, leading to airway closure and absorption atelectasis. In regions of lung bordering these dependent areas, airway narrowing will reduce the
f1.gif
/
f2.gif
ratio below the threshold needed for collapse to occur.
Atelectasis during anaesthesia can be detected using computerized tomography (CT) scans, usually involving a single lung slice taken immediately cranial to the dome of the right diaphragm. The amount of atelectasis is quantified by measuring the cross-sectional area of the atelectasis, expressed as a percentage of the total cross-section of lung on that CT slice. The percentages obtained by this technique seem small, but it must be remembered that each 1% of atelectasis on a cross-sectional CT scan represents around 3% of normally expanded lung volume. Surrogate measures of the amount of atelectasis during anaesthesia are often used, such as calculating the alveolar-arterial Po2 difference or PaO2:F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2 ratio.
When airway closure or narrowing occurs, absorption atelectasis is greatly influenced by the gas mixture present in the alveolus. When breathing air, the partial pressure of all gases present in mixed venous blood is about 87 kPa, compared with 95 kPa in the alveolar gas.2 This difference of 8 kPa arises because water vapour is only present in alveolar gas, carbon dioxide carriage in the blood is mostly as dissolved bicarbonate rather than carbon dioxide gas in solution, and because of the small alveolar to arterial P[SIZE=-2]O[/SIZE]2 difference caused by venous admixture. To keep the alveoli open in the normal healthy lung, this difference of 8 kPa must be countered by the elastic recoil of the respiratory system. When breathing oxygen 100%, the alveolar P[SIZE=-2]N[/SIZE]2 will fall quickly, and for a short time nitrogen will diffuse from the blood into the alveolus and so mitigate against alveolar collapse. However, once blood P[SIZE=-2]N[/SIZE]2 becomes negligible, the total partial pressure of gas in the mixed venous blood, even when breathing oxygen 100%, decreases to just 12.5 kPa (P[SIZE=-2]O[/SIZE]2 of 6.4 kPa and P[SIZE=-2]CO[/SIZE]2 of 6.1 kPa) whereas that of the alveolus remains unchanged, so introducing a pressure gradient of more than 80 kPa resulting in rapid transfer of oxygen across the alveolar-capillary barrier and alveolar collapse. Mathematical modelling of absorption atelectasis during anaesthesia has been used to predict the time taken for an area of unventilated lung to collapse after induction of anaesthesia.4 This model supports the physiological principles already described by predicting that the rate at which collapse occurs is related to the F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2 during anaesthesia and that preoxygenation for 3 min substantially reduces the time taken for collapse to occur irrespective of the F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2 used after induction.
Do these physiological principles impact on clinical practice, in particular the role of oxygen 100% and absorption atelectasis? It is now more than a decade since CT studies first demonstrated that preoxygenation leads to greater areas of atelectasis after induction.5 For example, if F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2 before induction is 0.3, 0.6, 0.8, or 1.0, the mean percentage of atelectasis seen on CT scans post-induction is 0.2%, 0.2%, 1.3%, and 5.6% respectively.5 6 Re-expansion of atelectasis during anaesthesia (discussed later), usually provoked by falling oxygen saturation, is another time when oxygen 100% is often used. In a study, again using CT scanning, use of an F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2 of 1.0 during the re-expansion manoeuvre led to recurrence of the atelectasis in 5 min whereas the lung remained expanded for more than 40 min when F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2 was 0.4.7 Finally, administering oxygen 100% before extubation also worsens atelectasis. CT scans performed 20 min post-extubation in groups randomly assigned to be ventilated with an F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2 of 0.4 or 1.0 before extubation were found to have 2.6% and 8.3% atelectasis, respectively.8 The presence of more than 8% atelectasis immediately after operation is clinically very significant as re-expansion of this collapsed lung after major surgery may take some days.
Not all studies of atelectasis and anaesthesia have given such a clear link between F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2 and atelectasis. Maintenance of anaesthesia with an F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2 of either 0.3 or 0.8 found no significant difference in the amount of atelectasis 24 h after operation (2.5% vs 3.0%, respectively).9 However, despite the lack of statistical difference between the groups in this small study, only four of 14 patients with an intraoperative FIO2 of 0.3 had more than 2% atelectasis after operation compared with 10 of 14 in the FIO2 of 0.8 group. These results also provide some reassurance that the atelectasis seen so commonly during anaesthesia may be partially resolved 24 h after the anaesthetic.
Collectively, these studies offer good evidence that the amount of atelectasis during anaesthesia increases significantly with increasing FIO2 and that the use of oxygen 100% at any stage of an anaesthetic is associated with significant pulmonary collapse. Reducing FIO2, even by a small amount to 0.8, seems to be substantially better than using oxygen alone.
Either nitrogen or nitrous oxide may be used to reduce the F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2. Mathematical modelling predicts that the two gases should have similar effects on the time taken for gas to be absorbed from an unventilated lung unit.4 However, this prediction over-simplifies the clinical situation, which will be influenced by the timing of the closure of the airway during the anaesthetic. If nitrous oxide is used immediately after induction and airway closure occurs in the first few minutes of the anaesthetic, when the alveolar to arterial P[SIZE=-2]N[/SIZE]2[SIZE=-2]O[/SIZE] gradient is large, then absorption of N2O from the alveolus will be rapid and faster than the diffusion of any remaining nitrogen from the blood into the alveolus. Under this combination of circumstances, atelectasis is likely to occur. Should airway closure occur later in the anaesthetic when alveolar and arterial P[SIZE=-2]N[/SIZE]2[SIZE=-2]O[/SIZE] are similar, then little gas exchange will occur between the blood and alveolus beyond the closed airway, and the alveolus should remain expanded. Clinical support for these observations is sparse, with only one study comparing F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2 of 0.4 in nitrogen or N2O.10 This study, which used PaO2:F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2 ratio to indirectly estimate the amount of atelectasis 30 min after induction, found that nitrous oxide at this early stage of an anaesthetic did indeed behave in a similar fashion to oxygen 100%. Thus, it seems that if N2O is part of the anaesthetic technique from the outset, then atelectasis may be more frequent than when ventilation is with oxygen and air.
Re-expansion of atelectasis is possible for a patient who has a tracheal tube, and two techniques are described. The first involves increasing positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to 15 cm H2O, followed by an increase in tidal volume until peak inspiratory pressure reaches 40 cm H2O. This pattern of ventilation is then maintained for 10 breaths, before returning to standard ventilator settings.11 The second involves a vital capacity manoeuvre to a sustained airway pressure of 40 cm H2O, which in the original studies was maintained for either 15 or 25 s.12 13 On the basis of subsequent CT scan studies, when using this technique half the atelectasis is re-expanded after just 2 s, and in three-quarters of patients all the atelectasis is re-expanded in 8 s.13 At these high inflation pressures, there are benefits to minimizing the duration, particularly to reduce the cardiovascular effects of this prolonged and severe Valsalva manoeuvre and to minimize the small risk of pulmonary barotrauma. Prevention of atelectasis can be achieved with modest levels of PEEP, with 10 cm H2O preventing atelectasis formation even when high F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2 is used.14 Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) of 6 cm H2O applied via a tight fitting facemask before induction is also effective at preventing atelectasis formation, again despite using oxygen 100%, although this is a rather invasive technique to be used routinely.15
Use of oxygen 100% before and during anaesthesia will always be necessary in some patients. These include patients with a known difficult airway, a reduced FRC and therefore oxygen reserve (term pregnancy, obesity, abdominal distension, and lung pathology), an increased oxygen consumption (pregnancy, paediatrics, and sepsis), or pre-existing hypoxia from lung pathology. In these situations, an effective technique of preoxygenation16 should continue to be used and should always be followed, whenever possible, by a properly administered re-expansion manoeuvre and PEEP then used to prevent atelectasis reforming. In patients who are hypoxic before induction, the use of CPAP before and during induction should be considered.
In other groups of patients, where the reasons for using oxygen 100% are less compelling but the anaesthetist wants the security provided by greater oxygen reserves than found when breathing air, use of FIO2 of 0.8 or 0.6 should be considered. Several minutes of protection from desaturation will still be obtained, and the possibility of atelectasis during anaesthesia and into the postoperative period will be reduced. In practice, the casual preoxygenation referred to at the start of this editorial usually involves a short exposure to an inadequate flow of oxygen with an ineffective seal between the mask and the patient. This type of preoxygenation will rarely achieve an F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2 high enough to contribute to atelectasis formation, but neither will it significantly prolong the time to hypoxia if ventilation should prove impossible. If breathing additional oxygen is considered desirable before induction and the anaesthetist is content to avoid oxygen 100%, then the required F[SIZE=-2]I[/SIZE]O2 should still be delivered using the same technique as for preoxygenation1617 but with some added air.
The same considerations should be applied to the use of oxygen 100% during re-expansion manoeuvres and before extubation. Unfortunately, the groups of patients in whom atelectasis may be particularly detrimental are the same groups as listed above in whom use of oxygen 100% is more strongly indicated, so as usual clinicians must compromise between two opposing requirements.
A. B. Lumb St James's University Hospital Leeds UK
 
@Urzuz Totally agree with you. For me, it's all about risk mitigation and patient safety. The beauty of this specialty is that everyone can have their own opinion and practice style as long as they can justify it and operate smoothly and safely.

Also, sooo PEEP doesn't work for O2 induced atelectasis? Not sure why many of you think this is such an issue. Have you seen it in actual practice, or is this just academic dogma that you are holding on to?
 
@Urzuz Totally agree with you. For me, it's all about risk mitigation and patient safety. The beauty of this specialty is that everyone can have their own opinion and practice style as long as they can justify it and operate smoothly and safely.

Also, sooo PEEP doesn't work for O2 induced atelectasis? Not sure why many of you think this is such an issue. Have you seen it in actual practice, or is this just academic dogma that you are holding on to?

Anyone who does chest cases with one lung ventilation has seen how effective an alveolar recruitment maneuver is. You can see all the alveoli pop open before your eyes when you hold CPAP for 15-20 seconds. I consider atelectasis an issue that is so easily managed that it becomes a nonissue.
 
I’ll play devil’s advocate.

I regularly run patients on an FiO2 of 1.0 in the OR. Why? For me, the potential benefits outweigh the risks. The risks of a few hours of hyperoxia, barring any comorbidities like ILD etc, are mostly theoretical. Sure, there may be free radicals that cause some degree of tissue damage at a molecular level with prolonged exposure, sure there may be some diffusion atelectasis (once again after several hours of exposure), etc. But ventilating at 100% FiO2 buys you time in the event of an emergency, which in my opinion, is much more likely to cause tangible long-term consequences to a patient. The loss of an airway (eg: ETT becomes dislodged - happened to my partner just the other day), bronchospasm due to anaphylaxis or reactive airway disease, etc - these things IMO are much more likely to cause long term harm in an otherwise healthy patient, so buying precious minutes by having your FRC saturated with oxygen outweighs any negative consequences of having hyperoxia for those hours that they’re intubated for. In patients with comorbidities where hyperoxia may have real, tangible harm (eg: ILD), I do ventilate at a lower FiO2.
I'm sold.
 
[QUOTE
But if you are only convinced by RCT's, then you shouldn't feel the need to use low tidal-volume ventilation either, and should feel comfortable cranking away at 10mL/kg [Effect of Intraoperative Low Tidal Volume vs Conventional Tidal Volume on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Major Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial - PubMed]
[/QUOTE]
When this study came out we tried this out on out cardiac surgery patients and found a lot of postop atelectasis and poor saturations and realized that like many studies that we pick apart in our journal clubs it didn't pan out in this patient population and after a few months we resumed using 6-8 ml/kg. As far as FiO2 I am not going to micromanage anyone I am supervising unless they are causing a fire risk with open O2.
 
[QUOTE
But if you are only convinced by RCT's, then you shouldn't feel the need to use low tidal-volume ventilation either, and should feel comfortable cranking away at 10mL/kg [Effect of Intraoperative Low Tidal Volume vs Conventional Tidal Volume on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Major Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial - PubMed]
When this study came out we tried this out on out cardiac surgery patients and found a lot of postop atelectasis and poor saturations and realized that like many studies that we pick apart in our journal clubs it didn't pan out in this patient population and after a few months we resumed using 6-8 ml/kg. As far as FiO2 I am not going to micromanage anyone I am supervising unless they are causing a fire risk with open O2.[/QUOTE]

So you had same amount of PEEP applied as your typical practice with TVs 8-10cc/kg rather than 6-8, and you had more atelectasis and desaturations post op?
 
Attributable mortality- If there’s a bad outcome it defies all scientific logic to think that any of it will be attributable to the anaesthetists choice of FiO2 during a routine case.

OTOH the mortality attributable to overoxygenating sick lungs on the vent for days to weeks is much different.

Much like the reflex of putting the simple OD pt in the ICU on 6ml\kg- makes no difference, the tube is coming out the next day, unless you truly do something egregious with the vent.
 
Attributable mortality- If there’s a bad outcome it defies all scientific logic to think that any of it will be attributable to the anaesthetists choice of FiO2 during a routine case.

The problem with intuitive thinking and using logic is that you never know you are wrong. The way you pose your thought is exactly that. Why appeal to logic?? Why not use evidence. The whole point of performing a RCT (vs retrospective and prospective studies) is to eliminate confounders even the ones you haven't thought of.

And while I agree that we don't require evidence for everything we do (for instance you dont need a RCt to tell you that jumping out of an airplane at 10000 ft without a parachute is much worse than having a parachute) There are plenty of ideas out there in medicine that were upended with real world evidence, and doesn't seem to make much sense why until suddenly it did.
 
Last edited:
Attributable mortality- If there’s a bad outcome it defies all scientific logic to think that any of it will be attributable to the anaesthetists choice of FiO2 during a routine case.

OTOH the mortality attributable to overoxygenating sick lungs on the vent for days to weeks is much different.

Much like the reflex of putting the simple OD pt in the ICU on 6ml\kg- makes no difference, the tube is coming out the next day, unless you truly do something egregious with the vent.

Funny that you mention icu patients because icu literature is just chock full of stuff that makes sense but doesn't work.
 
Does ICU work?

I mean i do a lot of pre-ops on relatively unhealthy patients. You see a fair share who have had open heart surgeries, sometimes one that had an esophagectomy and so on.
What i've never seen (that i can think of right know) is patients that say "Oh by the way i had a nasty infection, was in the ICU for 6 weeks trached and peged, left the hospital after 3 months and know i'm living the good life.
 
The problem with intuitive thinking and using logic is that you never know you are wrong. The way you pose your thought is exactly that. Why appeal to logic?? Why not use evidence. The whole point of performing a RCT (vs retrospective and prospective studies) is to eliminate confounders even the ones you haven't thought of.

And while I agree that we don't require evidence for everything we do (for instance you dont need a RCt to tell you that jumping out of an airplane at 10000 ft without a parachute is much worse than having a parachute) There are plenty of ideas out there in medicine that were upended with real world evidence, and doesn't seem to make much sense why until suddenly it did.

Yes evidence is important. But evidence is useless without an estimation of pretest probability. Sure, if someone had done a good study showing that conservative (or liberal) FiO2 reduces post op complications in routine ops- great. I’m not aware of any such evidence though. In those situations we need to ask is there no evidence because a) there is no effect or b) we haven’t done a powerful enough study to detect it. This requires a consideration of the pretest probability that the intervention we are testing actually works.

Neglect of the pretest probability is what results in adoption of interventions found to be positive from small studies that are later found to be ineffective or even harmful. Statistics can be just as misleading as “medical sense”. We need to combine the two.
 
Does ICU work?

I mean i do a lot of pre-ops on relatively unhealthy patients. You see a fair share who have had open heart surgeries, sometimes one that had an esophagectomy and so on.
What i've never seen (that i can think of right know) is patients that say "Oh by the way i had a nasty infection, was in the ICU for 6 weeks trached and peged, left the hospital after 3 months and know i'm living the good life.

I agree completely. There are much more important outcomes than alive/dead.
 
Top