Variable versus conventional lung protective mechanical ventilation during open abdominal surgery (PROVAR): a randomised controlled trial

Abstract Background Experimental studies showed that controlled variable ventilation (CVV) yielded better pulmonary function compared to non-variable ventilation (CNV) in injured lungs. We hypothesized that CVV improves intraoperative and postoperative respiratory function in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery. Methods Fifty patients planned for open abdominal surgery lasting >3 h were randomly assigned to receive either CVV or CNV. Mean tidal volumes and PEEP were set at 8 ml kg −1 (predicted body weight) and 5 cm H 2 O, respectively. In CVV, tidal volumes varied randomly, following a normal distribution, on a breath-by-breath basis. The primary endpoint was the forced vital capacity (FVC) on postoperative Day 1. Secondary endpoints were oxygenation, non-aerated lung volume, distribution of ventilation, and pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications until postoperative Day 5. Results FVC did not differ significantly between CVV and CNV on postoperative Day 1, 61.5 (standard deviation 22.1) % vs 61.9 (23.6) %, respectively; mean [95% confidence interval (CI)] difference, −0.4 (−13.2–14.0), P =0.95. Intraoperatively, CVV did not result in improved respiratory function, haemodynamics, or redistribution of ventilation compared to CNV. Postoperatively, FVC, forced expiratory volume at the first second (FEV 1 ), and FEV 1 /FVC deteriorated, while atelectasis volume and plasma levels of interleukin-6 and interleukin-8 increased, but values did not differ between groups. The incidence of postoperative pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications was comparable in CVV and CNV. Conclusions In patients undergoing open abdominal surgery, CVV did not improve intraoperative and postoperative respiratory function compared with CNV. Clinical trial registration NCT 01683578.