Commentary: Short-term Smoking Cessation Before Thoracic Surgery Does Not Increase Postoperative Pulmonary Complications. Debunking the Myths

Author(s):  
Abbas E. Abbas
BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e036568
Author(s):  
Sebastian T Lugg ◽  
Amy Kerr ◽  
Salma Kadiri ◽  
Alina-Maria Budacan ◽  
Amanda Farley ◽  
...  

IntroductionSmoking prior to major thoracic surgery is the biggest risk factor for development of postoperative pulmonary complications, with one in five patients continuing to smoke before surgery. Current guidance is that all patients should stop smoking before elective surgery yet very few are offered specialist smoking cessation support. Patients would prefer support within the thoracic surgical pathway. No study has addressed the effectiveness of such an intervention in this setting on cessation. The overall aim is to determine in patients who undergo major elective thoracic surgery whether an intervention integrated (INT) into the surgical pathway improves smoking cessation rates compared with usual care (UC) of standard community/hospital based NHS smoking support. This pilot study will evaluate feasibility of a substantive trial.Methods and analysisProject MURRAY is a trial comparing the effectiveness of INT and UC on smoking cessation. INT is pharmacotherapy and a hybrid of behavioural support delivered by the trained healthcare practitioners (HCPs) in the thoracic surgical pathway and a complimentary web-based application. This pilot study will evaluate the feasibility of a substantive trial and study processes in five adult thoracic centres including the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. The primary objective is to establish the proportion of those eligible who agree to participate. Secondary objectives include evaluation of study processes. Analyses of feasibility and patient-reported outcomes will take the form of simple descriptive statistics and where appropriate, point estimates of effects sizes and associated 95% CIs.Ethics and disseminationThe study has obtained ethical approval from NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC number 19/WM/0097). Dissemination plan includes informing patients and HCPs; engaging multidisciplinary professionals to support a proposal of a definitive trial and submission for a full application dependent on the success of the study.Trial registration numberNCT04190966.


2019 ◽  
Vol 130 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
MiHye Park ◽  
Hyun Joo Ahn ◽  
Jie Ae Kim ◽  
Mikyung Yang ◽  
Burn Young Heo ◽  
...  

Abstract Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Recently, several retrospective studies have suggested that pulmonary complication is related with driving pressure more than any other ventilatory parameter. Thus, the authors compared driving pressure–guided ventilation with conventional protective ventilation in thoracic surgery, where lung protection is of the utmost importance. The authors hypothesized that driving pressure–guided ventilation decreases postoperative pulmonary complications more than conventional protective ventilation. Methods In this double-blind, randomized, controlled study, 292 patients scheduled for elective thoracic surgery were included in the analysis. The protective ventilation group (n = 147) received conventional protective ventilation during one-lung ventilation: tidal volume 6 ml/kg of ideal body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 5 cm H2O, and recruitment maneuver. The driving pressure group (n = 145) received the same tidal volume and recruitment, but with individualized PEEP which produces the lowest driving pressure (plateau pressure–PEEP) during one-lung ventilation. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications based on the Melbourne Group Scale (at least 4) until postoperative day 3. Results Melbourne Group Scale of at least 4 occurred in 8 of 145 patients (5.5%) in the driving pressure group, as compared with 18 of 147 (12.2%) in the protective ventilation group (P = 0.047, odds ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.99). The number of patients who developed pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome was less in the driving pressure group than in the protective ventilation group (10/145 [6.9%] vs. 22/147 [15.0%], P = 0.028, odds ratio 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.92). Conclusions Application of driving pressure–guided ventilation during one-lung ventilation was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications compared with conventional protective ventilation in thoracic surgery.


Thorax ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 65 (9) ◽  
pp. 815-818 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Agostini ◽  
H. Cieslik ◽  
S. Rathinam ◽  
E. Bishay ◽  
M. S. Kalkat ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Michelle Maureen McGauvran ◽  
Tetsu Ohnuma ◽  
Karthik Raghunathan ◽  
Vijay Krishnamoorthy ◽  
Selby Johnson ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document