The Influence of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure on Leakage and Oxygenation Using a Laryngeal Mask Airway: A Randomized Trial

The value of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in maintaining oxygenation during ventilation with a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) mask is unclear. To clarify the potential benefit or harm to PEEP application during positive pressure ventilation with a ProSeal LMA® mask, we compared the effect of PEEP versus zero end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP) on gas leakage and oxygenation. We hypothesized that a PEEP of 8 mbar (8.2 cm H 2 O) would be associated with an increased incidence of gas leakage compared to ZEEP. We designed a prospective, controlled, randomized, single-blinded, multicenter clinical trial. Patients >18 years of age with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I/II without increased risk of aspiration were enrolled if they were scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia with an LMA mask. Patients were randomized to a control group managed with ZEEP or an intervention group managed with a PEEP of 8 mbar. Both groups received positive pressure ventilation. The primary end point was the occurrence of gas leakage. The Student t test and χ 2 test were used for statistical analysis. A total of 174 patients were enrolled in the ZEEP group, and 208 were enrolled in the PEEP group. The incidence of gas leakage did not differ between the 2 groups (ZEEP: 23/174, 13.2%; PEEP: 42/208, 20.2%; P = .071; odds ratio [OR], 1.611; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.954-2.891). However, more patients required reseating of the LMA mask in the PEEP group (ZEEP: 5/174, 2.9%; PEEP: 18/208, 8.7%; P = .018; OR, 3.202; 95% CI, 1.164-8.812). The need for endotracheal intubation did not differ between groups (ZEEP: 2/174, 1.1%; PEEP: 7/208, 3.4%; P = .190; OR, 2.995; 95% CI, 0.614-14.608). After positive pressure ventilation for 25 minutes, the mean peripheral oxygen saturation (Sp o2 ) was higher in the PEEP than in the ZEEP group (98.5 [1.9]% vs 98.0 [1.4]%; P = .01). Peak inspiratory pressure (PIP; 16 [2] vs 12 [4] mbar; P < .001) and dynamic compliance (57 [14] vs 49 [14] mL/mbar; P < .001) were both higher in the PEEP group than in the ZEEP group. Use of PEEP did not affect the overall incidence of gas leakage. However, PEEP did result in a higher incidence of attempts to reseat the LMA mask compared to ZEEP, whereas the incidence of rescue intubation did not differ between groups. We concluded that a PEEP of 8 mbar did not increase overall gas leakage during positive pressure ventilation with an LMA mask, but it did slightly improve g