Clinical Research Directory

Effect of Positioning and ACBT on Pulmonary Complications After Cardiac Surgery

The goal of this quasi-experimental clinical trial is to learn if position management combined with the Active Cycle of Breathing Techniques (ACBT) works to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. It will also evaluate the individual effects of each technique compared to routine care. The main questions it aims to answer are: Does the combination of positioning and ACBT significantly lower the incidence and severity of postoperative pulmonary complications (like atelectasis, pneumonia, and respiratory failure) within the first 7 days after surgery? Does the combination of these techniques reduce the length of hospital stay compared to using each technique alone or routine care? Does the application of ACBT alone lower the rate of respiratory infections? Does position management alone improve oxygenation parameters (such as SpO\_{2} and PaO\_{2})? Researchers will compare four groups of patients to determine the most effective nursing approach: Group 1 (Control Group): Participants will receive routine postoperative hospital care only. Group 2 (ACBT Group): Participants will perform the Active Cycle of Breathing Techniques (breathing control, thoracic expansion, and huffing) three times daily for 10-15 minutes over 5 postoperative days. Group 3 (Positioning Group): Participants will receive structured position management exclusively, shifting from head elevation (30-45) early after surgery to a semi-recumbent position (approx60) during waking hours, alongside other positions like lateral or forward-leaning as tolerated. Group 4 (Combined Group): Participants will receive both structured position management and perform the ACBT sessions according to the same schedules. All participants will undergo daily respiratory assessments using a standardized scoring system for 7 days post-surgery or until hospital discharge.

Driving Pressure During Surgeries With High Risk for Postoperative Pulmonary Complications

The goal of this clinical trial is to compare two different types of perioperative mechanical ventilation (MV), specifically Protective Mechanical Ventilation (PMV) and MV with the lowest possible Driving Pressure (ΔP), in relation to the appearance of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in adult patients who are operated and have higher risk of PPCs. The main questions it aims to answer are: * Is MV with lower ΔP better than conventional PMV in preventing PPCs in patients with higher risk for PPCs? * Does MV with lower ΔP decrease hospital stay, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) need and mortality? * Does MV with lower ΔP suit better than PMV to lung characteristics and needs intraoperatively? Researchers will compare MV with the lowest possible Driving Pressure (ΔP) to Protective Mechanical Ventilation (PMV) to see if any of this is more protective than the other concerning PPCs. All participants will receive perioperative MV. Half of them will receive conventional Protective Mechanical Ventilation (PMV). This will include well known generally protective settings for mechanical ventilation of patients, concerning volumes, pressures, respiratory rate, inspiratory gases and ventilation maneuvers. The rest of participants will be ventilated with the lowest possible Driving Pressure (ΔP). This will be similar to PMV in the chosen volumes, respiratory rate, inspiratory gases and ventilation maneuvers. However, the pressure inside lung at the end of expiration, eg Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP), will be not be preset for every patient. Initially, the investigators will perform a maneuver that will quantify each individual's lung characteristics and mechanics. According to this, the investigators will find the exact PEEP that seems to suit each patients lungs most, and use this perioperatively, trying to provide lungs the best conditions every time. After the completion of the operation, all the patients will be screened for PPCs, via arterial blood testing and chest X ray, and the results will be statistically analyzed trying to find if any of the forementioned strategies of mechanical ventilation surpasses the other concerning PPCs appearance. PPCs include atelectasis, respiratory failure, bronchospasm, pleural effusion, pneumonia, aspiration and pneumothorax. Furthermore hospital stay, ICU need and mortality will be noted. Finally, measurements of perioperative lung pressures, volumes and derived variables will be noted and compared statistically as well.

Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion Reduce Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

The goal of this double-center, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial is to compare the effect of intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. The main question it aims to answer are whether intravenous lidocaine reduce postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. Participants will be given intravenous lidocaine infusion in lidocaine group or placebo in control group.