
==== Front
World J Crit Care Med
WJCCM
World Journal of Critical Care Medicine
2220-3141
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc

jWJCCM.v13.i3.eid96214
10.5492/wjccm.v13.i3.96214
96214
Letter to the Editor
Driving pressure: A useful tool for reducing postoperative pulmonary complications
Posa D et al. Driving pressure reduces postoperative pulmonary complications
Posa Domenico Department of Emergency, Intensive Care Medicine and Anaesthesia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome 00168, Lazio, Italy. domenico.posa@gmail.com

Sbaraglia Fabio Department of Emergency, Intensive Care Medicine and Anaesthesia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome 00168, Lazio, Italy

Ferrone Giuliano Department of Emergency, Intensive Care Medicine and Anaesthesia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome 00168, Lazio, Italy

Rossi Marco Department of Emergency, Intensive Care Medicine and Anaesthesia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome 00168, Lazio, Italy

Author contributions: Posa D was the primary researcher, responsible for writing the letter to the editor and selecting the reference literature; Sbaraglia F and Ferrone G reviewed the accuracy of the content and the structure of the article to ensure it was suitable for publication; Rossi M coordinated the working group and conducted the final revision of the letter to the editor.

Corresponding author: Domenico Posa, MD, Doctor, Department of Emergency, Intensive Care Medicine and Anaesthesia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Francesco Vito 1, Rome 00168, Lazio, Italy. domenico.posa@gmail.com

9 9 2024
9 9 2024
13 3 9621429 4 2024
7 6 2024
25 6 2024
©The Author(s) 2024. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.
The operating room is a unique environment where surgery exposes patients to non-physiological changes that can compromise lung mechanics. Therefore, raising clinicians’ awareness of the potential risk of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) is mandatory. Driving pressure is a useful tool for reducing lung complications in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and those undergoing elective surgery. Driving pressure has been most extensively studied in the context of single-lung ventilation during thoracic surgery. However, the awareness of association of VILI risk and patient positioning (prone, beach-chair, park-bench) and type of surgery must be raised.

Ventilator-induced lung injury
Protective ventilation
Driving pressure
Mechanical ventilation
Surgery room
Single-lung ventilation
Operative room
Surgery
==== Body
pmc Core Tip: Driving pressure is a fundamental tool in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and those in the operative room setting. Surgery exposes patients to physiological and non-physiological modifications that compromise their mechanical lung properties. Raising awareness of the potential risk of ventilator-induced lung injury should be mandatory for clinicians to reduce postoperative lung complications.

TO THE EDITOR

We read the article "Driving pressure in mechanical ventilation: A review" by Zaidi et al[1]. We want to congratulate the authors for comprehensively summarizing the role of driving pressure in various mechanical ventilation scenarios. However, we believe that further exploration of the role of driving pressure in operating rooms is necessary.

The review emphasizes the importance of protective ventilation across diverse settings. We contend that the operating room presents a unique environment where it is crucial to evaluate the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Currently, scientific evidence for many surgical settings is lacking, and some information has been translated from intensive care units[2].

As highlighted by the authors, single-lung ventilation in thoracic surgery is associated with a high incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), which can be alleviated using protective ventilation strategies. However, it remains unclear how surgeons address the risk of PPCs in settings where the risk may not be as evident. Aresurgeons equally vigilant across all surgical settings?

The initial message underscores that maintaining a low driving pressure is crucial for preventing PPCs in non-cardiac surgery[3]. Meta-analyses have confirmed the independent association between driving pressure and the development of PPCs[4]. The driving pressure can be reduced either by lowering the tidal volume or adjusting the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels. While the protective effects of low tidal ventilation on driving pressure are generally acknowledged, the benefits of PEEP remain debated, despite its close association with driving pressure. Tidal volume optimization and PEEP titration are effective strategies for reducing driving pressure, and driving pressure-guided ventilation may be a useful approach for general anesthesia[5]. However, in clinical practice, our comprehensive understanding of lung mechanics in different settings remains a topic of inquiry.

Patient positioning, such as prone, beach-chair, or park-bench, is known to alter the mechanical properties of the lung[6]. During surgery, patients may be placed in different positions (supine, lateral, or prone), which affect lung compliance, chest wall compliance, regional lung volume distribution, airway resistance, and lung gravitational gradient. Pulmonary mechanical properties are known to change with position, yet the extent to which driving pressure is altered and its clinical implications remain unclear.

The measurement of driving pressure plays a fundamental role in both open abdominal surgery and laparoscopic surgery, as they induce distinct alterations in lung mechanical properties. For instance, laparoscopic surgery leads to cephalic displacement of the diaphragm, increased airway pressure, decreased chest wall compliance, and altered lung volumes[7]. Pneumoperitoneum contributes to atelectasis and disrupts gas volume distribution in the lungs. While laparotomy also affects diaphragm function and increases the risk of atelectasis, it does so to a lesser extent than laparoscopy[8]. Patients undergoing major abdominal surgery experience improved intraoperative oxygenation and fewer PPCs, including atelectasis, when PEEP is adjusted to minimize driving pressure[9,10]. During pneumoperitoneum, respiratory mechanical properties undergo changes, with rising intra-abdominal pressure resulting in a linear increase in driving pressure within the standard pneumoperitoneum pressure ranges[11]. Driving pressure-guided ventilation during laparoscopic surgery reduces postoperative atelectasis; however, its assessment remains controversial[12]. Robotic surgery, similar to laparoscopy, often requires more extreme conditions. Patients subjected to robotic surgery under the highest driving pressure have been shown to exhibit a higher incidence of PPCs[13].

Patients with obesity necessitate special consideration in noncardiac surgery settings. As emphasized by the authors, these patients typically have higher chest walls, lower or negative pleural transpulmonary pressures, and lower compliance. Obese patients often undergo laparoscopic surgery or are placed in the Trendelenburg position, both of which elevate abdominal pressure and compromise lung ventilation.

Pregnancy presents anesthesiologists a different pattern of physiological changes in lung mechanics. Late pregnancy is marked by reduced lung volume, increased airway resistance, and higher pulmonary elastance[14]. While protective mechanical ventilation appears to be the most commonly used technique[15], there is lack of data on whether driving pressure-guided ventilation improves PPCs. In addition, obstetric surgery carries a risk of cardiopulmonary complications, such as placental embolism, which are unique to this surgical context[16].

The complex correlation between the lungs and the brain is gaining attention, especially in critical care settings[17]. Protective ventilation using low tidal volumes is recognized as the standard strategy for acute brain injuries[18]. However, the impact of mechanical ventilation on neurosurgical patients without prior traumatic injuries, such as oncology patients, remains unknown. Mechanical ventilation is likely to influence the neurosurgical pathology, suggesting the need for future research to investigate the role of driving pressure in these patients and its implications.

Finally, coronavirus disease 2019 has helped raise awareness about the risk of VILI, prompting a reevaluation of perioperative management for mechanically ventilated patients undergoing surgery. Recent studies have shown that even in patients without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-related acute respiratory distress syndrome, driving pressure-guided ventilation reduces the incidence of PPCs in those undergoing elective general anesthesia[19,20].

In summary, the optimal ventilation strategy remains unclear, and we lack a comprehensive understanding of how volume and pressure affect patients during mechanical ventilation. It is well known that PEEP, driving pressure, and tidal volume are closely related, and optimizing them constitutes the best ventilatory strategy for the patients.

Notably, the emerging concept of mechanical power may provide more answers than the driving pressure. Mechanical power, which represents the energy transferred to the lungs during mechanical ventilation, could potentially serve as a biomarker for the risk of PPCs[21].

Increased awareness of the potential risk of VILI in the operating room should be compulsory for clinicians. Various surgical settings expose the patient to non-physiological changes that may compromise lung mechanics, requiring anesthesiologists to consider these factors. Although further studies are needed, monitoring ventilation and maintaining protective parameters remain the current recommendations.

Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Provenance and peer review: Invited article; Externally peer reviewed.

Peer-review model: Single blind

Specialty type: Critical care medicine

Country of origin: Italy

Peer-review report’s classification

Scientific Quality: Grade B, Grade C

Novelty: Grade B, Grade B

Creativity or Innovation: Grade B, Grade B

Scientific Significance: Grade B, Grade B

P-Reviewer: Glumac S; Nguyen PN S-Editor: Fan M L-Editor: A P-Editor: Guo X
==== Refs
1 Zaidi SF Shaikh A Khan DA Surani S Ratnani I Driving pressure in mechanical ventilation: A review World J Crit Care Med 2024 13 88385 38633474
2 O'Gara B Talmor D Perioperative lung protective ventilation BMJ 2018 362 k3030 30201797
3 Buonanno P Marra A Iacovazzo C Vargas M Coviello A Squillacioti F Nappi S de Siena AU Servillo G Impact of ventilation strategies on pulmonary and cardiovascular complications in patients undergoing general anaesthesia for elective surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis Br J Anaesth 2023 131 1093 1101 37839932
4 Neto AS Hemmes SN Barbas CS Beiderlinden M Fernandez-Bustamante A Futier E Gajic O El-Tahan MR Ghamdi AA Günay E Jaber S Kokulu S Kozian A Licker M Lin WQ Maslow AD Memtsoudis SG Reis Miranda D Moine P Ng T Paparella D Ranieri VM Scavonetto F Schilling T Selmo G Severgnini P Sprung J Sundar S Talmor D Treschan T Unzueta C Weingarten TN Wolthuis EK Wrigge H Amato MB Costa EL de Abreu MG Pelosi P Schultz MJ PROVE Network Investigators Association between driving pressure and development of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for general anaesthesia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data Lancet Respir Med 2016 4 272 280 26947624
5 Ahn HJ Park M Kim JA Yang M Yoon S Kim BR Bahk JH Oh YJ Lee EH Driving pressure guided ventilation Korean J Anesthesiol 2020 73 194 204 32098009
6 Tanskanen P Kyttä J Randell T The effect of patient positioning on dynamic lung compliance Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1997 41 602 606 9181161
7 Nguyen TK Nguyen VL Nguyen TG Mai DH Nguyen NQ Vu TA Le AN Nguyen QH Nguyen CT Nguyen DT Lung-protective mechanical ventilation for patients undergoing abdominal laparoscopic surgeries: a randomized controlled trial BMC Anesthesiol 2021 21 95 33784987
8 Kim K Kim KS Jeon AR Park JY Choi WJ Changes in diaphragmatic excursion and lung compliance during gynaecologic surgery: open laparotomy versus laparoscopy-a prospective observational study Sci Rep 2020 10 21458 33293568
9 Mini G Ray BR Anand RK Muthiah T Baidya DK Rewari V Sahni P Maitra S Effect of driving pressure-guided positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration on postoperative lung atelectasis in adult patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery: A randomized controlled trial Surgery 2021 170 277 283 33771357
10 Zhang C Xu F Li W Tong X Xia R Wang W Du J Shi X Driving Pressure-Guided Individualized Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Abdominal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial Anesth Analg 2021 133 1197 1205 34125080
11 Mazzinari G Diaz-Cambronero O Serpa Neto A Martínez AC Rovira L Argente Navarro MP Malbrain MLNG Pelosi P Gama de Abreu M Hollmann MW Schultz MJ Modeling intra-abdominal volume and respiratory driving pressure during pneumoperitoneum insufflation-a patient-level data meta-analysis J Appl Physiol (1985) 2021 130 721 728 33357006
12 Xu Q Guo X Liu J Li SX Ma HR Wang FX Lin JY Effects of dynamic individualized PEEP guided by driving pressure in laparoscopic surgery on postoperative atelectasis in elderly patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial BMC Anesthesiol 2022 22 72 35296253
13 Assessment of Ventilation during general AnesThesia for Robotic surgery (AVATaR) Study Investigators PROtective VEntilation (PROVE) Network Writing Committee Members Steering Committee Members AVATaR Investigators Ventilation and outcomes following robotic-assisted abdominal surgery: an international, multicentre observational study Br J Anaesth 2021 126 533 543 33131757
14 Bourjeily G Sanapo L Messerlian G Bublitz MH Hott B Guillen M Aldana A Avalos A Sequeira T Felber C Brosnan C Zarif TE McCool FD A Longitudinal Study of Respiratory Mechanics in Pregnant Women with Obesity and Overweight Lung 2023 201 371 379 37421433
15 Kislovskiy Y Hauspurg A Donadee C Sakamoto S Murugan R Lung Protective Ventilation during Pregnancy: An Observational Cohort Study AJP Rep 2024 14 e111 e119 38646587
16 Vuong ADB Pham TH Bui VH Nguyen XT Trinh NB Nguyen YON Le DKT Nguyen PN Successfully conservative management of the uterus in acute pulmonary embolism during cesarean section for placenta previa: a case report from Tu Du Hospital, Vietnam and literature review Int J Emerg Med 2024 17 14 38287235
17 Wahlster S Sharma M Taran S Town JA Stevens RD Cinotti R Asehoune K Pelosi P Robba C ENIO Study Group Collaborators Utilization of mechanical power and associations with clinical outcomes in brain injured patients: a secondary analysis of the extubation strategies in neuro-intensive care unit patients and associations with outcome (ENIO) trial Crit Care 2023 27 156 37081474
18 Beqiri E Smielewski P Guérin C Czosnyka M Robba C Bjertnæs L Frisvold SK Neurological and respiratory effects of lung protective ventilation in acute brain injury patients without lung injury: brain vent, a single centre randomized interventional study Crit Care 2023 27 115 36941683
19 Wei N Chen JS Hu BS Cao Y Dai ZP Effects of driving pressure-guided ventilation on postoperative pulmonary complications in patients with COVID-19 undergoing abdominal surgery: A post-hoc propensity score-matched analysis Heliyon 2024 10 e25533 38333813
20 Jiang L Chen W Yu W Hu M Cao Y Yao W Chen Y [Driving pressure-guided lung protective ventilation strategy reduces postoperative pulmonary complications in patients recovered from COVID-19] Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao 2023 43 1821 1826 37933661
21 Schuijt MTU Hol L Nijbroek SG Ahuja S van Meenen D Mazzinari G Hemmes S Bluth T Ball L Gama-de Abreu M Pelosi P Schultz MJ Serpa Neto A Associations of dynamic driving pressure and mechanical power with postoperative pulmonary complications-posthoc analysis of two randomised clinical trials in open abdominal surgery EClinicalMedicine 2022 47 101397 35480074
