Perioperative medicine & outcomes
Individualised positive end-expiratory pressure to minimise driving pressure and postoperative pulmonary complications in minimally invasive thoracic and abdominal surgery a systematic review and meta-analysis
Pooled resultResult — go to the resultRelative risk 0.67 95% CI 0.56–0.79Authors' conclusion
Individualised PEEP was associated with fewer postoperative pulmonary complications and lower driving pressures during minimally invasive surgery
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic and abdominal surgery
- Participants
- 3,295 patients · 30 studies
- Comparison
- Individualised PEEP vs lung-protective ventilation
- Outcome
- Postoperative pulmonary complication
Methodological detailsrandom-effects models, prespecified subgroup analyses by surgery type, post hoc subgroup analyses
- Random-effects models
- Prespecified subgroup analyses by surgery type
- Post hoc subgroup analyses
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Relative risk
0.67
95% CI 0.56–0.79
Individualised PEEP vs Lung-protective ventilation
RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.56–0.79)
Further pooled results
| Outcome | Mean difference (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Driving pressureI2=86.6% | −3.17 (−3.84 to −2.50) | |
| −4−202Difference (linear scale) |
Original publication
Individualised positive end-expiratory pressure to minimise driving pressure and postoperative pulmonary complications in minimally invasive thoracic and abdominal surgery a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. Published 10 April 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →