Evidence Hub

Flow-controlled versus pressure-controlled ventilation in thoracic surgery with one-lung ventilation - A randomized controlled trial

J. Abram, P. Spraider, J. Martini, C. Velik-Salchner, Hannes Dejaco, Florian Augustin, G. Putzer, Tobias Hell et al.

Journal of clinical anesthesia, 2025

46 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Comparison of flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) to standard of pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in thoracic surgery procedures requiring one-lung ventilation.

DESIGN

Prospective, non-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

Operating theater at a university hospital, Austria.

PATIENTS

Patients scheduled for elective, thoracic surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received ventilation randomly either with FCV or PCV per-protocol for the duration of anesthesia.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary endpoint was oxygenation assessed by paO2 / FiO2 ratio 30 min after the start of OLV. Secondary endpoints included the required minute volume for CO2 removal, applied mechanical power and incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 46 patients were enrolled and 43 included in the primary analysis. The primary endpoint paO2 / FiO2 ratio was significantly higher in the FCV group (n = 21) compared to the control group (PCV n = 22) (187 vs 136 mmHg, MD 39 (95 % CI 1 to 75); p = 0.047). The required respiratory minute volume to obtain comparable mild hypercapnia during OLV was significantly lower in FCV (3.0 vs 4.5 l/min, MD -1.3 (95 % CI -1.9 to -0.8); p < 0.001). The applied mechanical power was also significantly lower (3.5 versus 7.6 J/min, MD -3.8 (95 % CI -5.3 to -2.7); p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center randomized controlled trial, flow-controlled ventilation improved gas exchange parameters in terms of oxygenation and carbon…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 46 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free