Skip to main content
NCBI home page
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2023 Jun 23;11:1090. Originally published 2022 Sep 22. [Version 2] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.125861.2

Effect of intraoperative PEEP with recruitment maneuvers on the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications during general anesthesia––protocol for Bayesian analysis of three randomized clinical trials of intraoperative ventilation

Guido Mazzinari 1,2,a, Fernando G Zampieri 3, Lorenzo Ball 4,5, Niklas S Campos 6,7, Thomas Bluth 8, Sabrine NT Hemmes 9,10, Carlos Ferrando 11,12, Julian Librero 13, Marina Soro 14, Paolo Pelosi 4,5, Marcelo Gama de Abreu 8, Marcus J Schultz 10,15,16, Ary Serpa Neto 6,7,10,17,18; PROVHILO investigators; iPROVE investigators; PROBESE investigators; PROVE network investigators
PMCID: PMC10207960  PMID: 37234075

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 1

This new version implements a hopefully clearer explanation on the strengths of priors belief and the suggested heterogeneity distribution (half-Cauchy) for the sensitivity analysis.

Abstract

Background: Using the frequentist approach, a recent meta–analysis of three randomized clinical trials in patients undergoing intraoperative ventilation during general anesthesia for major surgery failed to show the benefit of ventilation that uses high positive end–expiratory pressure with recruitment maneuvers when compared to ventilation that uses low positive end–expiratory pressure without recruitment maneuvers.

Methods: We designed a protocol for a Bayesian analysis using the pooled dataset. The multilevel Bayesian logistic model will use the individual patient data. Prior distributions will be prespecified to represent a varying level of skepticism for the effect estimate. The primary endpoint will be a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) within the first seven postoperative days, which reflects the primary endpoint of the original studies. We preset a range of practical equivalence to assess the futility of the intervention with an interval of odds ratio (OR) between 0.9 and 1.1 and assess how much of the 95% of highest density interval (HDI) falls between the region of practical equivalence.

Ethics and dissemination: The used data derive from approved studies that were published in recent years. The findings of this current analysis will be reported in a new manuscript, drafted by the writing committee on behalf of the three research groups. All investigators listed in the original trials will serve as collaborative authors.

Keywords: Mechanical ventilation, intraoperative ventilation, PEEP, recruitment maneuvers, postoperative pulmonary complications, Bayesian analysis

Introduction

Mechanical ventilation under general anesthesia and neuromuscular blockade yields a reduction in lung volume that can affect respiratory mechanics and gas exchange, 1 especially in specific clinical scenarios such as laparoscopic surgery with pneumoperitoneum insufflation. 2 This reduction in volume can lead to a cyclic opening and closing of alveoli during mechanical ventilation, ultimately inducing tissue injury known as atelectrauma. 3 Minimizing atelectrauma by applying a ‘lung protective ventilation’ to reopen the closed alveoli with a recruitment maneuver (RM) while sustaining their permeability by applying higher positive end–expiratory pressure (PEEP) is likely associated with a reduction in postoperative pulmonary complications. 4 The optimization of intraoperative ventilation and its potential beneficial effects on clinically relevant postoperative outcome measures is of particular importance due to the large number of surgical operations worldwide per year. 5

Using the frequentist statistical approach, a recent meta–analysis of three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in patients undergoing intraoperative ventilation during general anesthesia for major surgery failed to show the benefit of ventilation that uses high PEEP with RM when compared to ventilation that uses low PEEP without RM. 6

To enhance comprehension of the study data, the Bayesian methodology is beginning to be used in anesthesiology and critical care studies with uncertain frequentist outcomes. 7 – 10 In addition, applying a Bayesian framework in meta–analysis allows to model the heterogeneity estimation directly and to estimate pooled effects more precisely, especially when the number of studies included in the analysis is small. 11 Furthermore, Bayesian analysis can produce a full posterior distribution for both the effect estimate and heterogeneity and provide the capability of testing for tailored hypotheses assessing, for instance, if the estimate is smaller or larger than a specified interesting threshold. 12 , 13

We hypothesize that the intervention effect on the posterior probability distribution will lay outside a predefined region of practical equivalence. To test this hypothesis, we will reanalyze the pooled individual patient dataset of the three largest RCTs of intraoperative ventilation comparing ventilation with high PEEP with RM with ventilation with low PEEP without RM using a Bayesian framework according to previously published recommendations. 7 , 14 The protocol for the Bayesian statistical approach is presented in this paper. The posterior probability for the effect of the intervention on postoperative pulmonary complications will be assessed to better understand the potential benefit or harm of the tested intervention. This could provide a more interpretable probabilistic framework and allows to include preexisting knowledge into the analysis.

Protocol

Study type

We will perform a Bayesian analysis of the previously combined dataset named ‘Re–evaluation of the Effects of High PEEP with Recruitment Manoeuvres versus Low PEEP without Recruitment Manoeuvres During General Anaesthesia for Surgery’ (REPEAT), 6 , 15 registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03937375 on 3 rd May 2019. This dataset merged the individual patient data from three RCTs, the ‘High versus low positive end–expiratory pressure during general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery’ (PROVHILO) study (registered with Controlled-Trials.com: ISRCTN70332574), 16 the 'Individualized perioperative open–lung approach versus standard protective ventilation in abdominal surgery' (iPROVE) study (registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02158923) 17 and the ‘Effect of intraoperative high positive end–expiratory pressure with recruitment maneuvers vs low PEEP on postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients’ (PROBESE) study (registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02148692). 18 The study protocols of the original studies were approved by the respective institutional review boards and were published before the start of patient enrolment. 19 – 21 Written informed consent was obtained from all participating individuals before enrolment, and the rules of good clinical practices were followed. All analyses were performed with R version 4.0.1 (R Core Team).

Interventions from the original trials

PROVHILO was an international multicenter study comparing intraoperative ventilation with 12 cm H 2O PEEP with RM to intraoperative ventilation with 0–2 cm H 2O PEEP without RM in non–obese patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery. 16 iPROVE was a national multicenter study comparing two intraoperative ventilation strategies and two postoperative ventilatory support strategies in non-obese patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery. 17 In this study, intraoperative ventilation with high PEEP titrated to the best respiratory compliance combined with RM was compared to intraoperative ventilation with 5 cm H 2O PEEP without RM. Postoperative ventilation was carried out by applying 5 cm H 2O PEEP continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and supplementary oxygen at 0.5 fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO 2) or 0.5 FiO 2 alone. PROBESE was an international multicenter study comparing intraoperative ventilation with 12 cm H 2O PEEP with RM to intraoperative ventilation with 4 cm H 2O PEEP without RM in obese patients scheduled for major surgery. 18

Data management

The REPEAT database is harmonized, protected, and does not contain any patient–identifying information . Data are stored at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil. The full description of the data harmonization process is published elsewhere in full detail. 6 , 15 Briefly, the level of PEEP considered in the low PEEP group was considered as ≤5 cm H 2O and data from iPROVE were used according to the intraoperative ventilation strategy as no significant interaction with postoperative intervention was found. 15

Outcomes

The single primary outcome of this current analysis is a collapsed composite of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) developed during the first seven postoperative days as collected in the REPEAT database. The definitions used in the study are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Definitions of postoperative pulmonary complications.

PROVHILO iPROVE PROBESE
Mild respiratory failure PaO 2 < 60 mmHg or SpO 2 < 90% breathing at least 10 minutes of room air but responding to supplemental oxygen of 2 L/minute SpO 2 < 92% with FiO 2 of 0.21 or SpO 2 < 95% with FiO 2 of 0.50 PaO 2 < 60 mmHg or SpO 2 < 90% breathing at least 10 minutes of room air but responding to supplemental oxygen of 2 L/minute
Severe respiratory failure PaO 2 < 60 mmHg or SpO 2 < 90% breathing ≥ 10 minutes of room air but responding only to supplemental oxygen > 2 L/minute or need for noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation Increased FiO 2, increased requirement for CPAP, or the need for noninvasive or invasive ventilation PaO 2< 60 mmHg or SpO 2 < 90% breathing ≥ 10 minutes of room air but responding only to supplemental oxygen > 2 L/minute or need for noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation
ARDS AECC criteria * Berlin criteria ** Berlin criteria **
Pulmonary infection Need of antibiotics and at least one of the following criteria: new or changed sputum, new or changed lung opacities on chest X-ray when clinically indicated, tympanic temperature >38.3°C, WBC count >12,000/μl in the absence of other infectious focus Presence of a new pulmonary infiltrate and/or progression of previous pulmonary infiltrates on a chest radiograph plus at least two of the following criteria: (a) leukocytosis with > 12,000 WBC/mm 3 or leukopenia with < 4000 WBC/mm 3, (b) fever > 38.5°C or hypothermia < 36°C, and (c) increased secretions with purulent sputum and a positive bronchial aspirate Presence of a new pulmonary infiltrate and/or progression of previous pulmonary infiltrates on a chest radiograph plus at least two of the following criteria: (a) leukocytosis with > 12,000 WBC/mm 3 or leukopenia with < 4000 WBC/mm 3, (b) fever > 38.5°C or hypothermia < 36°C, and (c) increased secretions with purulent sputum and a positive bronchial aspirate
Pleural effusion Chest radiography with the presence of costophrenic angle blunting, displacement of adjacent anatomical structures, and blunting of the hemidiaphragmatic silhouette in the supine position Chest radiography with the presence of costophrenic angle blunting, displacement of adjacent anatomical structures, and blunting of the hemidiaphragmatic silhouette in the supine position Chest radiography with the presence of costophrenic angle blunting, displacement of adjacent anatomical structures, and blunting of the hemidiaphragmatic silhouette in the supine position
Atelectasis Chest radiography with lung opacification with shift of the mediastinum, hilum, or hemidiaphragm towards the affected area, and compensatory overinflation in the adjacent non-atelectatic lung Combination of SpO 2 ≤ 96% during the air test and chest radiography with lung opacification with shift of the mediastinum, hilum, or hemidiaphragm towards the affected area, and compensatory overinflation in the adjacent non-atelectatic lung Chest radiography with lung opacification with shift of the mediastinum, hilum, or hemidiaphragm towards the affected area, and compensatory overinflation in the adjacent non-atelectatic lung
Pneumothorax Chest radiography with air in the pleural space with no vascular bed surrounding the visceral pleura Chest radiography with air in the pleural space with no vascular bed surrounding the visceral pleura Chest radiography with air in the pleural space with no vascular bed surrounding the visceral pleura
Bronchospasm Presence of expiratory wheezing treated with bronchodilator Presence of expiratory wheezing treated with bronchodilator Presence of expiratory wheezing
Open in a new tab

ARDS: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome; SIRS: systemic inflammatory response syndrome; AECC: American–European consensus conference; WBC: White blood cells; PaO 2: Arterial oxygen pressure: SpO 2: peripheral oxygen saturation; FiO 2: inspired oxygen fraction.

*

Bernard GR, Artigas A, Brigham KL, et al. Report of the American-European consensus conference on ARDS: definitions, mechanisms, relevant outcomes and clinical trial coordination. The Consensus Committee. Intensive Care Med 1994;20:225–232.

**

Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, Thompson BT, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition. JAMA 2012;307:2526–2533.

Power calculation

For this unplanned analysis, we will use all the available data without any a priori power calculations.

Analysis plan

We will carry out a one–stage approach meta–analysis by fitting a multilevel Bayesian logistic model including the effect of the PEEP and RM strategy as population (fixed) effect and the study and site as a varying (random) effect modeling heterogeneity of effect across different studies.

Prior definition

For defining priors, we will follow previously published recommendations on Bayesian reanalysis 7 and recommendations from studies focusing on Bayesian modelling and meta–analysis. 22 , 23 The guidelines recommend to consider the full range of possible beliefs. Thus, we will use one skeptical, one pessimistic, and one optimistic prior for the effect of PEEP and RM compared to low PEEP, i.e., a PEEP of 5 cm H 2O or less, without RM on PPCs. In other words, we define three distributions to decide where to assign most of the probability mass. The pessimistic and optimistic prior distributions will be centred, on the averaged estimate from the original, whereas the skeptical prior will be centred around the absence of effect, i.e. 0. The variance of the prior distributions is defined according to the clinical belief that we cannot rule out a benefit for the intervention, although we can likely rule out a large effect and we cannot exclude a probability of harm and we set the probability masses accordingly. Therefore, we will consider a moderate belief strength for both the optimistic and neutral prior and a weak pessimistic prior. Following previous recommendations, 7 we will define priors as follows:

  • •

    The neutral skeptical prior of moderate strength is normally distributed and centered at the absence of effect [OR = 1; log (OR) = 0] with an SD of 0.355, such that 0.95 of the probability falls in the range of 0.5–2. Therefore, our skeptical prior will follow a normal distribution with a mean of 0 and an SD of 0.355 [N(0, 0.355)] ( Figure 1);

  • •

    The pessimistic and optimistic priors are informed by the averaged effect size estimate from the three original studies (PROVHILO: OR = 0.63; iPROVE: OR = 0.45; PROBESE: OR = 0.44; Mean: OR = 0.51). The standard deviation (SD) of the optimistic prior will be defined to retain a 0.15 probability of harm [Pr (OR > 1)], and the pessimistic prior is chosen to retain a 0.30 probability of benefit [Pr (OR < 1)] ( Figure 1);

  • •

    The prior for the heterogeneity of the intervention across studies is defined first assuming that at least some between–study variability is present; thus, it should always be more than 0. In the context of log-ORs there are established thresholds of heterogeneity according to the parameter τ that are defined as ‘reasonable’ (0.1 < τ < 0.5), ‘fairly high’ (0.5 < τ < 1.0), ‘fairly extreme’ (τ > 1.0). 24 As recommended in a previously published paper 23 we assume a prior distribution for heterogeneity as a half-Normal with a mean of 0 and an SD = 0.5, this yields prior probabilities of 52% in the reasonable, 27% in the fairly high and 5% in the extreme category respectively ( Figure 2);

  • •

    The prior correlation for the correlation matrix will be based on the Lewandowski-Kurowicka–Joe (LKJ) distribution with a η parameter of 2 for the varying effect. 22 , 25 ( Figure 3).

Figure 1. Probability density distribution of the optimistic (purple), skeptic (black) and pessimistic (dark red) prior for the effect estimate in log-Odds scale.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Dotted lines show the mean estimate for each distribution. The skeptic prior is centered at 0 while optimistic and pessimistic prior are centered at -0.67 and 0.67 respectively.

Figure 2. Probability density distribution for the heterogeneity prior.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Dotted lines separate heterogeneity categories based on τ values.

Figure 3. Probability density distribution for the correlation prior.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Setting the Range of Practical Equivalence (ROPE)

The ROPE measures how much the posterior probability distribution falls between a specific interval of equivalent effect. By assessing how much of the 95% highest density interval (HDI) falls between the ROPE we can quantify the probability of the studied intervention having a benefit or harm. 26 We define the ROPE as the interval between 0.9 < OR > 1.1. In addition, we define a threshold for severe harm at OR = 1.25. We will draw samples from the posterior distribution after fitting the models with each of the previously defined priors and determine how much of the mass probability lies in the ROPE interval or exceed the threshold for severe harm and determine the expected predicted posterior probabilities of treatment effect using the emmeans package. Furthermore, we compare the ROPE interval with the 95% HDI as previously recommended to see if the HDI probability mass falls outside the ROPE. 26 To illustrate this principle, we simulate data for a binary outcome and a binary dependent variable with four different effect estimates and report the posterior distribution with 95%HDIs and ROPE along with probability masses after fitting logistic models with skeptic priors as previously stated and following a previously published approach 7 ( Figure 4).

Figure 4. Posterior distribution of the log odds ratio (OR) fitting four logistic models using a “skeptical” prior with differing effect estimates: Panel A: slightly harmful, B: moderately harmful, C: moderately beneficial and D: strongly beneficial The distributions represent 100,000 draws from the posterior.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

The black vertical line at 0 represents the point at which the OR is equal to 1 [i.e., log (OR) = 0]. The area to the right (in green) represents the probability that the intervention is harmful. The probability of severe harm [Pr (OR.1.25)] is shown in darker green. Probabilities for each posterior distribution are reported in the upper part of each panel. Values below 0 mean the intervention is beneficial [Pr (log(OR),0); Pr (OR,1.0)] and are shown in light yellow with the probability of benefit again in the upper part of the figure. The ROPE is defined as the OR between 1/1.1 and 1.1 (the segmented area around log (OR) = 0). The 95% High-Density Interval (HDI) is reported as a blue line in each panel. We can see how fitting logistic models with different simulated effect yields to different interpretation for instance there is considerable difference between panel A, where the probability of harm is 63% and the probability that the estimate fall in the ROPE is 68% and the HDI 95% crosses the 0 threshold and panel D, where the probability of benefit is 100% and the 95%HDI and ROPE do not overlap.

Subgroup analysis

To determine if the relationship between treatment and the primary outcome differs between predetermined, clinically significant subgroups, we will fit the varying effect logistic regression model by adding an interaction term between treatment and subgroup and report the conditional effect of the interaction.

We will assess the following subgroups:

  • •

    Type of surgery, i.e., laparoscopic vs. open surgery;

  • •

    Risk for PPCs, i.e., Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia (ARISCAT) score < 45 vs. ≥ 45;

  • •

    Body mass index (BMI), used as a continuous variable;

  • •

    Type of PEEP selection, i.e., fixed vs. titrated; and

  • •

    Use of a postoperative element as part of the tested intervention.

Sensitivity analysis

We plan to perform the following sensitivity analyses:

  • •

    We will fit the same prespecified model but use only severe PPCs as the primary outcome, i.e. excluding mild respiratory failure.

  • •

    We will perform one analysis including only patients with lung collapse before the intervention; and

  • •

    We will fit the model by varying the heterogeneity prior τ to a to a half-Cauchy distribution with location 0 and scale 1. 27

Ethics and dissemination

The study will be performed according to national and international guidelines. All data derive from clinical trials approved by a competent institutional review board in each participating center according to the applicable legislation. The study Steering Committee will publish the study findings. The writing committee will submit the main manuscript on behalf of the research group. All investigators listed in the original trials will be listed as collaborators in an Appendix in alphabetical order, according to the centre's name. All efforts will be made to link all collaborators to the final publication in indexed databases.

Study status

We will carry out the analysis on the already locked database after publishing the protocol.

Discussion

We here describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan for a Bayesian reanalysis of an individual patient data meta–analysis which aim is to compare the effect of intraoperative high PEEP after RM vs. low PEEP without RM on the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with general anesthesia and low tidal volume mechanical ventilation. The optimization of mechanical ventilation during surgery is important since it can potentially improve clinically relevant post-operative outcomes with beneficial effects on patients, families and healthcare systems.

The present proposed analysis has several strengths. Firstly, we can use the merged dataset of three well–performed multicenter RCTs, that tested the effect of fairly comparable intraoperative ventilation strategies concerning a similar endpoint. Secondly, the Bayesian framework will provide probabilities of harm or benefit associated with the studied intervention, adding further insights to the frequentist interpretations used in the previous analyses of these three RCTs. 15 We scrupulously followed the published recommendations, especially concerning prior selection. 7 Thirdly, we prespecify subgroups analysis to assess the intervention effect in particularly interesting subpopulations such as patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery, and sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our methodology, which is crucial in a Bayesian framework.

The current standard statistical paradigm to analyze RCTs and perform meta–analyses is based on null–hypothesis testing and P–values and is referred to as frequentist approach. P–values indicate how incompatible a data set is with a specified statistical model, but their correct interpretation can be counterintuitive and at times even problematic. For instance, the typical P < 0.05 is defined as the probability that another study would yield a result equal to or more extreme than the one observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true. This definition can hamper the correct interpretation of the results of different studies, particularly if P > 0.05. When a test returns a P > 0.05, a study is often interpreted as negative, meaning that the intervention had no effect on the outcome of interest, while the rigorous interpretation should be that the available data were insufficient to reject the null hypothesis. 28 , 29

The results from the REPEAT analysis fall precisely in this category. The effect of a high PEEP after RM maneuvers compared to low PEEP without RM on post-operative pulmonary complications was not statistically significant, with a P value of 0.06, thus yielding an indeterminate result. We plan to leverage the advantages of a Bayesian approach to expand and escape the all-or-nothing simplistic interpretation of the study derived from the null hypothesis testing. Further, a probabilistic framework to attach probabilities to specific estimates has been added to the analysis, thus providing a much more interpretable and intuitive explanation of the results.

Bayesian analysis in this context has proven to help gain additional insights and scope and has been increasingly used in recent years. For instance, Bayesian analysis applied to RCTs with indeterminate frequentist in intensive care setting interventions focused on improving mortality 30 , 31 found that the posterior probability of mortality benefit, i.e., relative risk (RR) < 1 or OR <1, ranged between 88% and 99% according to a range of prespecified priors. 8 , 9 Other reports used the same approach 7 to investigate further an opposite, i.e. probability of harm, indeterminate result in same clincal setting RCT, 32 found that the probability of harm of the intervention was > 90%. Bayesian analysis has also been used to elucidate the effect of interventions in specific subgroups, 10 to evaluate the effect of selection bias 33 and in meta-analysis. 34

This current analysis has several limitations which need to be addressed. First, some differences between studies concerning how PEEP and RM were used and titrated cannot be unraveled, although we will use a previously harmonized individual patient database. Secondly, we analyze the effect of a broad category, i.e., high PEEP and RM vs. low PEEP and no RM. Defining the optimal PEEP and RM strategy is beyond the scope of the current analysis and must be elucidated in further investigations. Thirdly, the original RCTs did not exclude patients without lung collapse; therefore, a selection bias towards less benefit of the intervention cannot be excluded. Fourthly, although previously published recommendations 7 were rigorously followed, there is no unequivocal way to choose a universally correct prior probability distribution. Moreover, although we included all data available from three of the largest RCTs assessing the effect of open lung strategy in the perioperative period, a certain degree of precision bias cannot be excluded should data from other studies be incorporated, although a change in the overall conclusions is unlikely.

In conclusion, we will use a Bayesian methodology to better interpret data from three large RCTs investigating the potential beneficial role of high PEEP after RM compared to low PEEP without RM during intraoperative low tidal mechanical ventilation to prevent post-operative pulmonary complications and improve clinically relevant outcome measures. Bayesian analysis can be a helpful tool to augment the interpretation of anesthesiology and critical care trials.

Data availability

Underlying data

The de-identified database derived from the original studies is stored at Hospital Israelita Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Data can be requested at the center IRB at: https://www.einstein.br/en/research/clinical-research-center/contact-us. Email address to contact: ary.neto2@einstein.br

Acknoledgements

The original trials received the following funds: The PROVHILO trial (a collaboration of the Protective Ventilation Network [PROVENet]) was funded by the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) and the Academical Medical Center (AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). The iPROVE trial was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grant PI14/00829, co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund), and the Grants Programme of the European Society of Anaesthesiology. The Clinical Trials Network of the European Society of Anaesthesiology provided financial support for the steering committee meetings, onsite visits to participating sites, for the building of the electronic data capture system, and for the advertising of the PROBESE trial. The Technische Universitat Dresden provided logistical support for the coordinating site.

The Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnologico provided financial support for insurance in Brazil. The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland and the Northern Ireland Society of Anaesthetists provided financial support for the participating sites in the UK.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

[version 2; peer review: 3 approved]

References

  • 1. Culley DJ, Bigatello L, Pesenti A: Respiratory Physiology for the Anesthesiologist. Anesthesiology. 2019 Jun;130:1064–1077. 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002666 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Mazzinari G, Diaz-Cambronero O, Alonso-Iñigo JM, et al. : Intraabdominal pressure targeted positive end-expiratory pressure during laparoscopic surgery: An open-label, nonrandomized, crossover, clinical trial. Anesthesiology. 2020;667–677. 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Ball L, Costantino F, Fiorito M, et al. : Respiratory mechanics during general anaesthesia. Ann. Transl. Med. 2018 Oct;6(19):379–379. 10.21037/atm.2018.09.50 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Slutsky AS, Ranieri VM: Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013;369:2126–2136. 10.1056/NEJMra1208707 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Rose J, Weiser TG, Hider P, et al. : Estimated need for surgery worldwide based on prevalence of diseases: a modelling strategy for the WHO Global Health Estimate. Lancet Glob. Health. 2015 Apr 27;3:S13–S20. 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70087-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Campos NS, Bluth T, Hemmes SNT, et al. : Re–evaluation of the effects of high PEEP with recruitment manoeuvres versus low PEEP without recruitment manoeuvres during general anaesthesia for surgery – Protocol and statistical analysis plan for an individual patient data meta–analysis of PROVHILO, iPROVE and PROBESE. Rev. Esp. Anestesiol. Reanim (English Edition). 2020;67:76–89. 10.1016/j.redar.2019.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Zampieri FG, Casey JD, Shankar-Hari M, et al. : Using bayesian methods to augment the interpretation of critical care trials. an overview of theory and example reanalysis of the alveolar recruitment for acute respiratory distress syndrome trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2021;203:543–552. 10.1164/rccm.202006-2381CP2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Zampieri FG, Damiani LP, Bakker J, et al. : Effects of a Resuscitation Strategy Targeting Peripheral Perfusion Status versus Serum Lactate Levels among Patients with Septic Shock A Bayesian Reanalysis of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020 Feb 15;201(4):423–429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Goligher EC, Tomlinson G, Hajage D, et al. : Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Posterior Probability of Mortality Benefit in a Post Hoc Bayesian Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2018 Dec 4;320:2251–2259. 10.1001/jama.2018.14276 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Zampieri FG, Costa EL, Iwashyna TJ, et al. : Heterogeneous effects of alveolar recruitment in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a machine learning reanalysis of the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial. Br. J. Anaesth. 2019;123:88–95. 10.1016/j.bja.2019.02.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Harrer M, Cuijpers P, Furukawa Toshi A, et al. : Doing Meta-Analysis with R: A Hands-On Guide. London: Chapman & Hall CRC Press;2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Friede T, Röver C, Wandel S, et al. : Meta-analysis of two studies in the presence of heterogeneity with applications in rare diseases. Biom. J. 2017;59:658–671. 10.1002/bimj.201500236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Rhodes KM, Turner RM, White IR, et al. : Implementing informative priors for heterogeneity in meta-analysis using meta-regression and pseudo data. Stat. Med. 2016;20(35):5495–5511. 10.1002/sim.7090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Sung L, Hayden J, Greenberg ML, et al. : Seven items were identified for inclusion when reporting a Bayesian analysis of a clinical study. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2005;58:261–268. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Campos NS, Bluth T, Hemmes SNT, et al. : Intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure and postoperative pulmonary complications: a patient-level meta-analysis of three randomized clinical trials. Br. J. Anaesth. 2022;128(6):1040–1051. 10.1016/j.bja.2022.02.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. PROVE Network Investigators for the Clinical Trial Network of the European Society of Anaesthesiology. Hemmes SNT, Gama de Abreu M, et al. : High versus low positive end-expiratory pressure during general anaesthesia for open abdominal surgery (PROVHILO trial): A multicentre randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;384(9942):495–503. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60416-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Ferrando C, Soro M, Unzueta C, et al. : Individualized perioperative open-lung approach versus standard protective ventilation in abdominal surgery (iPROVE): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet Respir. Med. 2018;6:193–203. 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Bluth T, Serpa Neto A, Schultz MJ, et al. : Effect of Intraoperative High Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) with Recruitment Maneuvers vs Low PEEP on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Obese Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;321(23):2292–2305. 10.1001/jama.2019.7505 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Hemmes SNT, Severgnini P, Jaber S, et al. : Rationale and study design of PROVHILO - a worldwide multicenter randomized controlled trial on protective ventilation during general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery. Trials. 2011;12:111. 10.1186/1745-6215-12-111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Ferrando C, Soro M, Canet J, et al. : Rationale and study design for an individualized perioperative open lung ventilatory strategy (iPROVE): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:193. 10.1186/s13063-015-0694-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Bluth T, Teichmann R, Kiss T, et al. : Protective intraoperative ventilation with higher versus lower levels of positive end-expiratory pressure in obese patients (PROBESE): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18:202. 10.1186/s13063-017-1929-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. McElreath R: Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan. 2nd ed. Boca Raton Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts;2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Röver C, Bender R, Dias S, et al. : On weakly informative prior distributions for the heterogeneity parameter in Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis. Res. Synth. Methods. 2021 Jul 1;12(4):448–474. 10.1002/jrsm.1475 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Spegelhalter David J, Abrams Keith R, Myles JP: Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Evaluation. Chichester England: Wiley and Sons;2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Williams DR, Rast P, Bürkner PC: Bayesian Meta-Analysis with Weakly Informative Prior Distributions. 2018. PsyArXiv Epub ahead of print 10 January 2018. 10.31234/osf.io/7tbrm [DOI]
  • 26. Kruschke JK: Rejecting or Accepting Parameter Values in Bayesian Estimation. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2018 Jun 1;1(2):270–280. [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Röver C: Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using the bayesmeta r package. J. Stat. Softw. 2020;93:1–51. 10.18637/jss.v093.i06 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA: The ASA's statement on P-values: Context, process, and purpose. Am. Stat. 2016;70:129–133. 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Greenwald AG, Gonzalez R, Harris RJ, et al. : Effect sizes and p values: What should be reported and what should be replicated? Psychophysiology. 1996 Mar;33:175–183. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996.tb02121.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Hernández G, Ospina-Tascón GA, Damiani LP, et al. : Effect of a Resuscitation Strategy Targeting Peripheral Perfusion Status vs Serum Lactate Levels on 28-Day Mortality among Patients with Septic Shock: The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;321:654–664. 10.1001/jama.2019.0071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Combes A, Hajage D, Capellier G, et al. : Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018;378:1965–1975. 10.1056/NEJMoa1800385 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Cavalcanti AB, Suzumura ÉA, Laranjeira LN, et al. : Effect of lung recruitment and titrated Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) vs low PEEP on mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome - A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318:1335–1345. 10.1001/jama.2017.14171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Zampieri FG, Machado FR, Biondi RS, et al. : Association between Type of Fluid Received Prior to Enrollment, Type of Admission, and Effect of Balanced Crystalloid in Critically Ill Adults A Secondary Exploratory Analysis of the BaSICS Clinical Trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2022;205:1419–1428. 10.1164/rccm.202111-2484OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Albuquerque AM, Tramujas L, Sewanan LR, et al. : Mortality Rates among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Infection Treated with Tocilizumab and Corticosteroids: A Bayesian Reanalysis of a Previous Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw. Open. 2022;5:e220548. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0548 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
F1000Res. 2023 Jun 28. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.151851.r181196

Reviewer response for version 2

Lukas Gasteiger 1

I thank the Authors for their response and recommend to accept the manuscript in its present form.

Best regards

Lukas Gasteiger

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Ventilation, Right Ventricular Function, Circulation

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2023 Jun 5. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.138209.r173629

Reviewer response for version 1

Ottokar Stundner 1

The authors present a comprehensive protocol for a reanalysis of three RCTs using Bayesian meta-analysis techniques. While the three individual studies had slightly different scopes, the common primary outcome of all is the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), and the exposure is a different ventilation strategy (“long protective” vs “non-lung protective”; high PEEP + recruitment maneuvers vs. low PEEP and no RMs).

The authors argue that a recent meta-analysis using classical frequentist methodology (mixed effects logistic regression) yielded “no difference” between the exposure levels (n=1,913 “lung protective” vs. 1,924 “non-lung protective”, raw complication incidence 29.4% vs 32.2% (OR 0.87 (0.75-1.01)), but some differences in secondary endpoints (more frequent desaturations in low PEEP, more intraoperative hypotension in high PEEP, …). The point that Bayesian methodology, providing a more tangible and interpretable effect size for the interventions’ efficacy, would be a suitable analytic approach here, is well taken and there are prominent examples in the literature where a Bayesian re-analysis served to further the understanding of (particularly composite) datasets.

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work. The protocol is very well written and the research question is valid, relevant, and succinctly presented.

My two primary concerns lie (1) in the definition of PCCs, and (2) in the explanation text on how the effect estimate priors will be weighted.

The PCC definition arguably differs between the three studies. E.g., the pulmonary infection category which is looser in PROVHILO than in the other studies, or bronchospasm, which is looser in PROBESE. The authors duly note the existence of these differences in their limitations section. As they argue, using a wide outcome definition may be sensible, given a relatively broad exposure bandwidth and heterogeneity in practical application of the treatment arms. The reviewer wonders if the authors deliberated adding different complication stages in the analysis or expanding their sensitivity analysis in this regard (they were already planning on excluding “minor” complications for sensitivity analysis). On the other hand, subgrouping may limit statistical power further and lead to model convergence issues.

As for the prior definition; This important topic is explained at length and is planned according to a comprehensive protocol (Zampieri et al, 2021) and technical description (Röver et al, 2021). The reviewer appreciates the nuanced approach. However, I do believe that some more information / explanation could be conveyed regarding the choice of relative prior weighting.

Specific comments:

  • Please add a reference to the published results of the frequentist meta-analysis (Campos et al, BJA 2022 1); only the study protocol is referenced.

  • The authors will use a half-normal distribution for the heterogeneity prior. Could they briefly explain the rationale to perform a sensitivity analysis with I squared distribution (instead of i.e. Half-Cauchy).

  • “Previous studies suggested a benefit of PEEP and RM, but many studies were neutral or indeterminate when using a frequentist approach. Therefore, we will consider a moderate belief strength for both the optimistic and neutral prior and a weak pessimistic prior. Following previous recommendations,7 we will define priors as follows….”

  • What exactly does the word “therefore” signify here? It seems sensible to align the means ESs to the preexisting data, the weighting choice for the optimistic vs pessimistic priors could be explained some more (especially with regard to possible pessimistic assumptions, i.e., higher complication incidence). I suggest the authors elaborate a bit more here.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Comparative Effectiveness Research, Public Health, Regional Anesthesia

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

References

  • 1. : Intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure and postoperative pulmonary complications: a patient-level meta-analysis of three randomised clinical trials. Br J Anaesth .2022;128(6) : 10.1016/j.bja.2022.02.039 1040-1051 10.1016/j.bja.2022.02.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
F1000Res. 2023 Jun 20.
Guido Mazzinari 1

My two primary concerns lie (1) in the definition of PCCs, and (2) in the explanation text on how the effect estimate priors will be weighted.

1. The PCC definition arguably differs between the three studies. E.g., the pulmonary infection category which is looser in PROVHILO than in the other studies, or bronchospasm, which is looser in PROBESE. The authors duly note the existence of these differences in their limitations section. As they argue, using a wide outcome definition may be sensible, given a relatively broad exposure bandwidth and heterogeneity in practical application of the treatment arms. The reviewer wonders if the authors deliberated adding different complication stages in the analysis or expanding their sensitivity analysis in this regard (they were already planning on excluding “minor” complications for sensitivity analysis). On the other hand, subgrouping may limit statistical power further and lead to model convergence issues.

Thank you for the interesting remark. Indeed, we used a database where the primary outcome definition where previously harmonised to join the data from the different RCTs. New aspiration pneumonitis, pulmonary infiltrates and cardiogenic pulmonary oedema were not included in the definition of PPC, because they were not recorded in the iPROVE trial. Also, moderate respiratory failure, as defined only in the PROBESE trial was merged in the definition of severe respiratory failure to achieve concordance with the other trials. Still, there is some slight mismatch in some of the definitions, as the reviewer points out, and we already acknowledge in the limitations section of the protocol and in the previous studies. We planned indeed a sensitivity analysis excluding mild respiratory failure from the outcome to test the robustness of our findings. We purposedly tried to design a simple protocol and not overburden with too many secondary analysis because we feel that this would drive the focus away from the main question and could possibly complicate the model estimation as the reviewer correctly pointed out.

2. As for the prior definition, This important topic is explained at length and is planned according to a comprehensive protocol (Zampieri et al, 2021) and technical description (Röver et al, 2021). The reviewer appreciates the nuanced approach. However, I do believe that some more information / explanation could be conveyed regarding the choice of relative prior weighting.

We agree that this is a key concept. We, therefore, reworked the paragraph on the prior to be clearer and more explicit. The updated version of the manuscript now reads as follows:

“For defining priors, we will follow previously published recommendations on Bayesian reanalysis 7 and recommendations from studies focusing on Bayesian modelling and meta–analysis. 22,23 The guidelines recommend to consider the full range of possible beliefs. Thus, we will use one skeptical, one pessimistic, and one optimistic prior for the effect of PEEP and RM compared to low PEEP, i.e., a PEEP of 5 cmH2O or less, without RM on PPCs. In other words, we define three distributions to decide where to assign most of the probability mass. The pessimistic and optimistic prior distributions will be centred, on the averaged estimate from the original, whereas the skeptical prior will be centred around the absence of effect, i.e. 0. The variance of the prior distributions is defined according to the clinical belief that we cannot rule out a benefit for the intervention, although we can likely rule out a large effect and we cannot exclude a probability of harm and we set the probability masses accordingly. Therefore, we will consider a moderate belief strength for both the optimistic and neutral prior and a weak pessimistic prior. Following previous recommendations, 7 we will define priors as follows:

  • The neutral skeptical prior of moderate strength is normally distributed and centered at the absence of effect [OR = 1; log (OR) = 0] with an SD of 0.355, such that 0.95 of the probability falls in the range of 0.5–2. Therefore, our skeptical prior will follow a normal distribution with a mean of 0 and an SD of 0.355 [N(0, 0.355)] (Figure 1);

  • The pessimistic and optimistic priors are informed by the averaged effect size estimate from the three original studies (PROVHILO:OR= 0.63; iPROVE:OR= 0.45; PROBESE:OR= 0.44; Mean:OR= 0.51). The standard deviation (SD) of the optimistic prior will be defined to retain a 0.15 probability of harm [Pr (OR > 1)], and the pessimistic prior is chosen to retain a 0.30 probability of benefit [Pr (OR < 1)] (Figure 1)”

Specific comments:

3. Please add a reference to the published results of the frequentist meta-analysis (Campos et al, BJA 2022 1); only the study protocol is referenced.

The mentioned study is already referenced in the manuscript; it is reference #15. If the reviewer is referencing another study, please let us know, and we will add it to the manuscript.

4. The authors will use a half-normal distribution for the heterogeneity prior. Could they briefly explain the rationale to perform a sensitivity analysis with I squared distribution (instead of i.e. Half-Cauchy).

We agree. The I 2 distribution is used mainly for modelling heterogeneity in conventional Bayesian metanalysis models with aggregate data, as explained in length in Rover et al. Res. Synth. Methods. 2021 Jul 1;12(4): 448–474. Following the reviewer, we changed the distribution of the heterogeneity prior for the sensitivity analysis to a half-Cauchy prior. We changed the manuscript accordingly, which now reads:

“We will fit the model by varying the heterogeneity prior τ to a half-Cauchy distribution with location 0 and scale 1."

5.“Previous studies suggested a benefit of PEEP and RM, but many studies were neutral or indeterminate when using a frequentist approach. Therefore, we will consider a moderate belief strength for both the optimistic and neutral prior and a weak pessimistic prior. Following previous recommendations,7 we will define priors as follows….”. What exactly does the word “therefore” signify here? It seems sensible to align the means ESs to the preexisting data, the weighting choice for the optimistic vs pessimistic priors could be explained some more (especially with regard to possible pessimistic assumptions, i.e., higher complication incidence). I suggest the authors elaborate a bit more here.

Please see our reply to comment #2. We hopefully made the logic behind the priors definition clearer.

F1000Res. 2023 May 22. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.138209.r173633

Reviewer response for version 1

Lukas Gasteiger 1

This is a very well designed protocol for a Bayesian analysis of three recent RCT's to better understand the effect of intraoperative PEEP on PPCs. By now no RCT was able to clearly show a benefit of a higher PEEP and RM compared to lower PEEP levels and no RM. Therefore the question, if such an intervention is beneficial to our patients, is of high clinical relevance. 

The chosen model to use a Bayesian protocol seems appropriate and adds the advantage that no new trial and inclusion of patients is needed.

Furthermore to assess the effect of this intervention is of central interest as it is known, that a higher lever of PEEP may also interact with Right Ventricular Function and therefore may lead to circulatory side-effects such as hypotension. Also, an increased need for vasopressor therapy may be associated. 

  • Is it planned to also assess for circulatory side-effects as secondary outcome?

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Ventilation, Right Ventricular Function, Circulation

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2023 May 23.
Guido Mazzinari 1

Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our protocol.

Regarding your question:

- Is it planned to also assess for circulatory side-effects as secondary outcome?

We chose to limit this reanalysis to the primary outcome, i.e. occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications, to keep our aim simple and focused. Moreover, we feel that the prior distribution selection was easier since we followed a previously published approach to this type of outcome. As for hypotension episodes of hemodynamic related side-effects, the longitudinal nature of the data would require a careful planning of the priors, and we are not aware of any already accepted approach in this field. It is certainly worth looking into it in the future.

F1000Res. 2023 May 22. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.138209.r173632

Reviewer response for version 1

Andrea Cortegiani 1

The authors submitted the protocol for a Bayesian analysis of a dataset composed by data from three major RCTc of intraoperative ventilation evaluating high PEEP + recruitment maneuvers vs low PEEP and no recruitment maneuvers. The dataset (REPEAT) has been already used for frequentist analysis and is of high internal and external validity. The authors are expert in the field and are able to provide important insights with this analysis. The methods for this Bayesian analysis, especially the selected prior distributions are reasonable and adequate.

I fully support the indexing of this protocol and look forward to seeing the results of the analysis.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2023 May 23.
Guido Mazzinari 1

Thank you very much for your time and effort to review our protocol.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    Underlying data

    The de-identified database derived from the original studies is stored at Hospital Israelita Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Data can be requested at the center IRB at: https://www.einstein.br/en/research/clinical-research-center/contact-us. Email address to contact: ary.neto2@einstein.br

    Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

    RESOURCES