ClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT07461285Updated Mar 10, 2026

Perioperative Prophylactic Positive Pressure Ventilation Reduces Postoperative Pulmonary Complications.

An interventional study of Conventional Ventilation and Perioperative positive pressure ventilation in Postoperative Pulmonary Complications (PPCs), sponsored by Jun Zhang. Not yet recruiting. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 90 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-03-10.

Sponsored by Jun Zhang · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
206
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 90 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) ranges from 5% to 33%. PPCs significantly prolong hospital stay, increase the economic burden, and are associated with postoperative mortality at 30 days and 1 year. The occurrence of PPCs is associated with multiple perioperative factors. A multimodal approach may provide better prevention against PPCs. We hypothesize that perioperative prophylactic positive pressure ventilation can reduce the incidence of PPCs in patients undergoing high-risk abdominal surgery.

Read the detailed description

Globally, over 313 million surgical procedures are performed annually. The incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) ranges from 5% to 33%. PPCs include respiratory tract infection, respiratory failure, pleural effusion, atelectasis, pneumothorax, bronchospasm, and aspiration pneumonia, representing the second most common postoperative complication, second only to surgical site infection. PPCs significantly prolong hospital stay, increase economic burden, and are associated with 30-day and 1-year postoperative mortality.

The occurrence of PPCs is associated with multiple perioperative factors. General anesthesia induction can alter the distribution of gas within the lungs, shifting ventilation toward the ventral and left regions, resulting in decreased dorsal ventilation and varying degrees of atelectasis. This leads to ventilation inhomogeneity and ventilation-perfusion mismatch, impairing systemic oxygenation. Studies have shown that during mechanical ventilation, mechanical stress increases in atelectatic areas, potentially causing tissue hypoxia, while adjacent areas may experience overdistension and hyperoxia. Hyperoxia and overdistension promote the release of pulmonary pro-inflammatory factors, reactive oxygen species, and increased leukocyte infiltration. Research indicates that local tissue hypoxia and altered mechanical stress due to atelectasis can induce lung injury. An experimental study reported ultrastructural evidence of microvascular endothelial disruption in atelectatic lung tissue, suggesting that such damage may increase pulmonary vascular permeability and protein leakage. Furthermore, the systemic inflammatory response triggered by the nociceptive stimuli of major thoracic or abdominal surgery, combined with airway hyperreactivity, can collectively disrupt the alveolar epithelial barrier and impair mucociliary clearance. After extubation at the end of surgery, the risk of atelectasis and hypoxemia persists due to residual anesthetic effects, pain-induced suppression of the cough reflex, among other factors. These elements, combined with patient-related factors (e.g., advanced age, smoking, pre-existing lung disease), collectively contribute to the development of PPCs.

Lung-protective ventilation strategies, including low tidal volume, application of PEEP, and intermittent recruitment maneuvers, are now widely used clinically to prevent PPCs. Some scholars posit that the primary principle of lung-protective ventilation is the prophylactic perioperative use of positive pressure ventilation (P.O.P-ventilation), aimed at minimizing the reduction in lung volume throughout the perioperative period. Evidence suggests that prophylactic positive pressure ventilation applied before anesthesia induction, during surgery, and after tracheal extubation can reduce the incidence of adverse postoperative respiratory events. Although lung-protective ventilation is increasingly adopted, critical gaps in evidence remain. How to best implement a multimodal, perioperative prophylactic positive pressure ventilation strategy to reduce PPCs requires further investigation. Therefore, in a preliminary study, we divided 120 patients scheduled for elective non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation into three groups, applying 0, 5, or 10 cm H₂O of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during anesthesia induction, respectively, and observed the incidence of post-induction atelectasis. Our results showed that 10 cm H₂O of PEEP significantly reduced the occurrence of atelectasis following induction. However, this preliminary study did not follow up on the incidence of postoperative PPCs.

Building upon our preliminary findings, and to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of perioperative prophylactic positive pressure ventilation in reducing PPCs, we propose the following strategies for our new clinical study: (1) Increase the sample size and enroll patients undergoing abdominal surgery at intermediate-to-high risk for PPCs (Assessement of Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score, ARISCAT score ≥ 45); (2) Implement a multimodal strategy for prophylactic positive airway pressure. This includes using 10 cm H₂O PEEP during anesthesia induction, applying electrical impedance tomography (EIT)-guided individualized PEEP during surgery, and utilizing high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy after tracheal extubation to maintain positive end-expiratory pressure. (3) Follow up and assess PPCs occurring within 7 days postoperatively during the hospital stay. Through these strategies, we aim to further establish the protective role of a perioperative prophylactic positive pressure ventilation strategy on postoperative lung outcomes, thereby providing an enhanced empirical foundation for optimizing the clinical prevention of PPCs.

02

Conditions studied

  • Postoperative Pulmonary Complications (PPCs)

Keywords

  • Postoperative pulmonary complications
  • positive pressure ventilation
  • abdominal surgery
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Jun Zhang is the lead sponsor of 21 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 90 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients who have signed the form and are willing to comply with the study protocol;
  • Age ≥ 18 years and ≤ 90 years;
  • classification I to III;
  • Scheduled for major elective abdominal surgery;
  • Undergoing general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation;
  • ARISCAT (Assessement of Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia) score ≥ 45;
  • Anticipated surgery duration ≥ 2 hours.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Untreated ischemic heart disease; severe cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease;
  • Severe asthma, pulmonary bullae/bullous lung disease, pneumothorax, bronchopleural fistula, etc.;
  • Severe underlying hepatic or renal disease;
  • Age \< 18 years or > 90 years;
  • Refusal to participate in the clinical study.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(2)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

ASA physical status

The anaesthetists’ scale of health before surgery: I is healthy, II has a mild illness that is under control, III a severe one, IV a severe illness that is a constant threat to life. V and VI are used for the critically ill and for organ donors.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Triple (Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
206 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Other
    Conventional Ventilation Group

    In this group, no PEEP is applied during anesthesia induction; conventional PEEP of 5 cmH₂O is used intraoperatively; and conventional face-mask oxygen therapy (at an oxygen flow rate of 5 L/min) is administered after tracheal extubation.

    Other: Conventional Ventilation

  • Experimental
    POP Group

    Perioperative Prophylactic Positive Airway Pressure Group. In this group, a PEEP of 10 cmH₂O is applied during general anesthesia induction; EIT-guided individualized PEEP is utilized during surgery; and following tracheal extubation, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy (with an FiO₂ of 40%) is administered to maintain positive end-expiratory pressure.

    Other: Perioperative positive pressure ventilation

Interventions

  • OtherConventional Ventilation

    No PEEP is applied during anesthesia induction; conventional PEEP of 5 cmH₂O is used during surgery; and after tracheal extubation, conventional face mask oxygen therapy (at an oxygen flow rate of 5 L/min) is administered.

  • OtherPerioperative positive pressure ventilation

    A PEEP of 10 cmH₂O is applied during general anesthesia induction; EIT-guided individualized PEEP is utilized during surgery; and following tracheal extubation, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy (with an FiO₂ of 40%) is administered to maintain positive end-expiratory pressure.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Incidence of PPCs

    Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are a group of adverse respiratory events occurring after surgery, representing a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Common PPCs include atelectasis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, pleural effusion, and bronchospasm. They are associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased healthcare costs, and higher short- and long-term mortality. Risk factors include patient age, pre-existing lung disease, smoking, and the type and duration of surgery/anesthesia. Preventive strategies, such as lung-protective ventilation, early mobilization, and incentive spirometry, are crucial in high-risk patients. Monitoring and timely management of PPCs are essential for improving surgical outcomes.

    Time frame: Up to 1 week after surgery

Secondary outcomes

  1. ICU admission rate

    Time frame: Up to 1 week after surgery

  2. Length of hospital stay

    Time frame: Whole hospital stay

  3. Postoperative pain score

    The postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score is a simple, widely used tool for quantifying a patient's subjective pain intensity. It typically consists of a 10-cm horizontal line anchored by the descriptors "no pain" (0) on the left and "worst pain imaginable" (10) on the right. The patient marks the line at a point corresponding to their pain level, and the score is determined by measuring the distance in centimeters from the left anchor. In the postoperative context, scores are often categorized for clinical interpretation: 0-3 cm indicates mild pain, 4-6 cm moderate pain, and 7-10 cm severe pain. It is a validated and sensitive instrument for tracking pain trends over time and assessing the effectiveness of analgesic interventions, forming a cornerstone of multimodal pain management protocols.

    Time frame: Up to 1 week after surgery

  4. Neutrophil extracellular traps

    Time frame: Perioperative

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — The data sets are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 10, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07461285
Lead sponsor
Jun Zhang
Responsible party
Jun Zhang (Professor, Fudan University) — Sponsor-investigator
First posted
Mar 10, 2026
Start date
Mar 20, 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
Sep 20, 2026 (estimated)
Completion
Sep 30, 2026 (estimated)
Last update
Mar 10, 2026

Study contacts

Jun Zhang Fudan University, Professor
Contact
snapzhang@aliyun.com
13817153025
Li Yang
Contact
liyangmagic@sina.com
Jun Zhang
study chair · Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Centre

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Mar 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion