<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Zhao L</submitter><funding>Special funds for comfortable medical anesthesia optimization at Shandong Provincial Medical</funding><funding>China Postdoctoral Science Foundation</funding><funding>Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China</funding><pagination>120</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10919006</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>24(1)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>A significant reduction in regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>) is commonly observed during one-lung ventilation (OLV), while positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can improve oxygenation. We compared the effects of three different PEEP levels on rSO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>, pulmonary oxygenation, and hemodynamics during OLV.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Forty-three elderly patients who underwent thoracoscopic lobectomy were randomly assigned to one of six PEEP combinations which used a crossover design of 3 levels of PEEP-0 cmH&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>O, 5 cmH&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>O, and 10 cmH&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>O. The primary endpoint was rSO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> in patients receiving OLV 20 min after adjusting the PEEP. The secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and respiratory variables.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>After exclusion, thirty-six patients (36.11% female; age range: 60-76 year) were assigned to six groups (n = 6 in each group). The rSO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> was highest at OLV(0) than at OLV(10) (difference, 2.889%; [95% CI, 0.573 to 5.204%]; p = 0.008). Arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>) was lowest at OLV(0) compared with OLV(5) (difference, -62.639 mmHg; [95% CI, -106.170 to -19.108 mmHg]; p = 0.005) or OLV(10) (difference, -73.389 mmHg; [95% CI, -117.852 to -28.925 mmHg]; p = 0.001), while peak airway pressure (Ppeak) was lower at OLV(0) (difference, -4.222 mmHg; [95% CI, -5.140 to -3.304 mmHg]; p &lt; 0.001) and OLV(5) (difference, -3.139 mmHg; [95% CI, -4.110 to -2.167 mmHg]; p &lt; 0.001) than at OLV(10).&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>PEEP with 10 cmH&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>O makes rSO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> decrease compared with 0 cmH&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>O. Applying PEEP with 5 cmH&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>O during OLV in elderly patients can improve oxygenation and maintain high rSO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> levels, without significantly increasing peak airway pressure compared to not using PEEP.&lt;h4>Trial registration&lt;/h4>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200060112 on 19 May 2022.</pubmed_abstract><journal>BMC pulmonary medicine</journal><pubmed_title>Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on regional cerebral oxygen saturation in elderly patients undergoing thoracic surgery during one-lung ventilation: a randomized crossover-controlled trial.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC10919006</pmcid><funding_grant_id>ZR2020MH012</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>ZR2022MH052</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>2021M691944</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>YXH2021ZX015</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Lu K</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yang X</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wu J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Semel J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zhao L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bermea KC</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Zhang Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lv S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bai Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yi W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Xiao Q</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on regional cerebral oxygen saturation in elderly patients undergoing thoracic surgery during one-lung ventilation: a randomized crossover-controlled trial.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>A significant reduction in regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>) is commonly observed during one-lung ventilation (OLV), while positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can improve oxygenation. We compared the effects of three different PEEP levels on rSO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>, pulmonary oxygenation, and hemodynamics during OLV.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Forty-three elderly patients who underwent thoracoscopic lobectomy were randomly assigned to one of six PEEP combinations which used a crossover design of 3 levels of PEEP-0 cmH&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>O, 5 cmH&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>O, and 10 cmH&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>O. The primary endpoint was rSO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> in patients receiving OLV 20 min after adjusting the PEEP. The secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and respiratory variables.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>After exclusion, thirty-six patients (36.11% female; age range: 60-76 year) were assigned to six groups (n = 6 in each group). The rSO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> was highest at OLV(0) than at OLV(10) (difference, 2.889%; [95% CI, 0.573 to 5.204%]; p = 0.008). Arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>) was lowest at OLV(0) compared with OLV(5) (difference, -62.639 mmHg; [95% CI, -106.170 to -19.108 mmHg]; p = 0.005) or OLV(10) (difference, -73.389 mmHg; [95% CI, -117.852 to -28.925 mmHg]; p = 0.001), while peak airway pressure (Ppeak) was lower at OLV(0) (difference, -4.222 mmHg; [95% CI, -5.140 to -3.304 mmHg]; p &lt; 0.001) and OLV(5) (difference, -3.139 mmHg; [95% CI, -4.110 to -2.167 mmHg]; p &lt; 0.001) than at OLV(10).&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>PEEP with 10 cmH&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>O makes rSO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> decrease compared with 0 cmH&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>O. Applying PEEP with 5 cmH&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>O during OLV in elderly patients can improve oxygenation and maintain high rSO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> levels, without significantly increasing peak airway pressure compared to not using PEEP.&lt;h4>Trial registration&lt;/h4>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200060112 on 19 May 2022.</description><dates><release>2024-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2024 Mar</publication><modification>2026-06-12T10:08:48.87Z</modification><creation>2025-04-04T12:34:50.157Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC10919006</accession><cross_references><pubmed>38448844</pubmed><doi>10.1186/s12890-024-02931-z</doi></cross_references></HashMap>