Search

Background: Frailty is a predictor of morbidity and mortality in older patients. This study aimed to investigate the influence of frailty status on likelihood, rate, duration, and severity of intraoperative hypotension (IOH), which can lead to severe organ dysfunction., Methods: Surgical patients (≥70 yr old) with preoperative frailty assessment were analysed retrospectively. Frailty status was defined as robust, prefrail, or frail based on modified Fried criteria. IOH was defined as mean arterial pressure <65 mm Hg. For likelihood, rate, duration, and severity of IOH, logistic and Poisson regression were used., Results: We included 2495 patients. There was no significant difference in likelihood of IOH. An increase of 9% in rate of IOH during surgery for prefrail (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.09 [95% CI 1.03-1.16], P=0.002), and 16% increase for frail patients (IRR 1.16 [1.04-1.29], P=0.007) was observed. During anaesthesia induction, prefrail patients exhibited a 28% increase in IOH (IRR 1.28 [1.12-1.47], P<0.001). Although there were no differences in the severity of IOH if surgery or anaesthesia induction duration was taken into account, frailty status was associated with a 15% longer time-weighted duration of IOH during anaesthesia induction (IRR 1.15 [1.06-1.24], P=0.001). Mediator analysis revealed that frailty status accounted for >90% after considering number of measured blood pressures and surgical duration and >70% after accounting for total propofol dose., Conclusions: Prefrail and frail patients aged ≥70 yr experienced up to 16% more IOH during surgery and 28% more during anaesthesia induction compared with robust patients. Preoperative optimisation (prehabilitation) and modification of intraoperative management (e.g. invasive blood pressure management) have the potential to reduce IOH in prefrail and frail patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recruitment maneuvers are used in patients with ARDS to enhance oxygenation and lung mechanics. Heterogeneous lung and chest-wall mechanics lead to unpredictable transpulmonary pressures and could impact recruitment maneuver success. Tailoring care based on individualized transpulmonary pressure might optimize recruitment, preventing overdistention. This study aimed to identify the optimal transpulmonary pressure for effective recruitment and to explore its association with baseline characteristics. Methods: We performed post hoc analysis on the Esophageal Pressure Guided Ventilation (EpVent2) trial. We estimated the dose-response relationship between end-recruitment end-inspiratory transpulmonary pressure and the change in lung elastance after a recruitment maneuver by using logistic regression weighted by a generalized propensity score. A positive change in lung elastance was indicative of overdistention. We examined how patient characteristics, disease severity markers, and respiratory parameters predict transpulmonary pressure by using multivariate linear regression models and dominance analyses. Results: Of 121 subjects, 43.8% had a positive change in lung elastance. Subjects with a positive change in lung elastance had a mean ± SD transpulmonary pressure of 15.1 ± 4.9 cm H 2 O, compared with 13.9 ± 3.9 cm H 2 O in those with a negative change in lung elastance. Higher transpulmonary pressure was associated with increased probability of a positive change in lung elastance (adjusted odds ratio 1.35 per 1 cm H 2 O of transpulmonary pressure, 95% CI 1.13-1.61; P = .001), which indicated an S-shaped dose-response curve, with overdistention probability > 50% at transpulmonary pressure values > 18.3 cm H 2 O. The volume of recruitment was transpulmonary pressure-dependent ( P < .001; R 2 = 0.49) and inversely related to a change in lung elastance after adjusting for baseline lung elastance ( P < .001; R 2 = 0.43). Negative correlations were observed between transpulmonary pressure and body mass index, PEEP, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and P aO 2 /F IO 2 , whereas baseline lung elastance showed a positive correlation. The body mass index emerged as the dominant negative predictor of transpulmonary pressure (ranking 1; contribution to R 2 = 0.08), whereas pre-recruitment elastance was the sole positive predictor (contribution to R 2 = 0.06). Conclusions: Higher end-recruitment transpulmonary pressure increases the volume of recruitment but raises the risk of overdistention, providing the rationale for transpulmonary pressure to be used as a clinical target. Predictors, for example, body mass index, could guide recruitment maneuver individualization to balance adequate volume gain with overdistention.