PubMed · 10149406
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
High frequency ventilation.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10149406/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Respiratory failure due to lung immaturity is a major cause of mortality in preterm infants. Although intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) saves lives, lung distortion during its use is associated with lung injury and chronic lung disease (CLD). Conventional IPPV is provided at 30-80 breaths per minute while a newer form of ventilation called high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) provides 'breaths' at 10-15 seconds. This has been shown to result in less lung injury in experimental studies. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to determine whether the elective use of high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) as compared to conventional ventilation in preterm infants who are mechanically ventilated for the respiratory distress syndrome decreases the incidence of chronic lung disease (CLD) without adverse effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were made of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conferences and symposia proceedings, expert informants, journal handsearching by the Cochrane Collaboration, mainly in the English language. Expert informant's search in the Japanese language was made by Prof. Y. Ogawa. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing HFOV and CV in preterm or low birth weight infants with pulmonary dysfunction, mainly due to RDS, who are to be given IPPV. Randomization and commencement of treatment should have been as soon as possible after the start of IPPV and usually in the first 12 hours of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of each trial was independently reviewed by the various authors. Each author extracted data separately; they were compared and differences were resolved. The standard method of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used to synthesize the data using relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD). From 1/RD the number needed to treat (NNT) for benefits, and number needed to harm (NNH) for adverse effects, were calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Meta-analysis of the six eligible studies comparing HFOV with CV revealed that there is no difference in mortality. There are trends toward decreases in CLD in survivors at 28-30 days, 'death or CLD at 28-30 days' and CLD in survivors at 36-37 weeks postmenstrual age or discharge in the HFOV group. However, there are trends towards increases in severe (grades 3 & 4) intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) and in periventricular leukomalacia (PVL) in the HFOV group. HFOV results in a small increase in any air leak syndrome (ALS), [summary RR 1.20 (1.03, 1.39)]. Only 2 trials have included neurodevelopmental follow up and more survivors in the HFOV group are abnormal [summary RR 1.26 (1.01, 1.58)]. In the subgroup of four trials where a high volume strategy (HVS) was used, HFOV results in more favourable pulmonary outcomes. There are significantly lower rates of CLD in survivors at 28-30 days [summary RR 0.53 (0.36, 0.76)] and of 'death or CLD at 28-30 days' [summary RR 0.56 (0.40, 0.77) with a non-significant trend towards a reduction in oxygen use at 36-37 weeks postmenstrual age or discharge [summary RR 0.74 (0.55, 1.01)]. There were no differences in the rates of IVH or PVL. Of the four trials in the subgroup using surfactant routinely, three also used the HVS. The trends in results were similar with surfactant to those for the HVS subgroup analysis. One trial suggests that HFOV may reduce the cost of in-hospital care. In the subgroup of two trials (HIFI 1989, Rettwitz-Volk 1998) not using a HVS there is no effect of HFOV on the rate of CLD; however, there is an increase in the rate of PVL [summary RR 1.64 (1.02, 2.64). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The overall meta-analyses is dominated by the large HIFI study which did not use the HVS recommended on the basis of animal studies, and in which surfactant was not available. Studies which used HVS have shown some benefits in short term measures of CLD without an in
BACKGROUND: This section is under preparation and will be included in the next issue. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine whether the elective (commencing soon after initiation of mechanical ventilation) use of high frequency jet ventilation (HFJV), as compared to conventional ventilation (CV) in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), would decrease the incidence of chronic lung disease (CLD) without adverse effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomized trials from MEDLINE were identified by means of MeSH and text words 'high frequency ventilation', 'high frequency jet ventilation', 'jet ventilation' from the years 1980 to 1997. The EMBASE database, the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, the Neonatal Trials Register of the Neonatal Review Group of the Cochrane Collaboration and the Cochrane library were also accessed. Proceedings of recent SPR/APS meetings were hand searched. Information was obtained from experts in the field, and cross references were checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials of elective high frequency jet ventilation versus conventional ventilation in preterm infants born at less than 35 weeks GA or with a birth weight less than 2000 gms with respiratory distress were included in the systematic review. Trials which used HFJV to 'rescue' preterm infants due to severe respiratory distress usually beyond 24 hours, and trials that used HFJV for a mandatory time period and then switched back to CV, were not included in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The standard methods of the Neonatal Cochrane Review Group were used, including independent trial assessment and data extraction. Data were analysed using relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD). From 1/RD the number needed to treat (NNT) for benefits and number needed to harm (NNH) for adverse outcomes were calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Overall analysis of the three trials showed that HFJV is associated with a reduction in CLD at 36 weeks postmenstrual age in survivors [RR 0.58 (0.34, 0. 98), RD -0.138 (-0.268, -0.007), NNT 7 (4, 90)]. The use of home oxygen therapy was evaluated in only one study (Keszler 1997) and a lower rate was found in the HFJV group [RR 0.24 (0.07, 0.79), RD -0. 176 (-0.306, -0.047), NNT 5 (3, 21)]. Overall there was a trend towards an increase in the risk of PVL in the HFJV group, which was not significant. Subgroup analyses shows a significant increase in risk of PVL in the trial by Wiswell 1996 [RR 5.0 (1.19, 21.04), RD 0.250 (0.069, 0.431), NNH 4.0 (2.3,14.5)] where a 'low volume strategy' was the standard protocol for HFJV. In the other trial by Keszler 1997, where the intention was to use a 'high volume strategy', there was no significant difference in the incidence of PVL, RR 0.42 (0.14, 1.30). In the overall analysis, there were no significant differences in the incidence of neonatal mortality, IVH all grades or in grades 3 or 4 IVH. In the subgroup where 'low volume strategy' was used there was a non-significant trend toward an increase in risk of IVH all grades and grades 3 or 4 IVH. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The overall analysis shows a benefit in pulmonary outcomes in the group electively ventilated with HFJV. Of concern is the significant increase in acute brain injury in one trial which used lower mean airway pressures when ventilating with HFJV. There are as yet no long term pulmonary or neurodevelopmental outcomes from any of the trials. Until further studies ascertain the most appropriate strategy to routinely ventilate premature infants with HFJV safely, ventilation with HFJV cannot be recommended for preterm infants with RDS.
BACKGROUND: This section is under preparation and will be included in the next issue. OBJECTIVES: Experimental studies suggest that high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) reduces pulmonary injury during mechanical ventilation. The main objective of this review is to test the hypothesis that by use of HFOV as compared to conventional ventilation (CV) it may be possible to rescue preterm infants with very severe lung disease and so at high risk of pulmonary air leak (PAL), without adverse effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: A search was carried out for all randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE using the MeSH and text terms, "high frequency ventilation", "high frequency oscillatory ventilation", " oscillatory ventilation" from the years 1980 to 1997. EMBASE, the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials and trials identified by the Neonatal Review Group of the Cochrane Collaboration were also reviewed. Information was also sought from experts in the field, cross references from studies and proceedings of recent meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of HFOV vs CV as rescue therapy in preterm infants with severe pulmonary dysfunction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The standard review method of the Neonatal Review Group was used. This includes independent quality assessment and data extraction by the second author. Relative risk (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat (NNT) were used. MAIN RESULTS: Only one trial was found and this showed a reduction in any new pulmonary air leak (PAL) [RR 0.73 (0.55,0.96), RD -0.174 (-0.321,-0.027)]. The number of infants that need to be treated (NNT) to prevent one infant having any PAL is six (95% CI 3, 37). There is no difference in the rate of PIE or of gross pulmonary air leak, such as pneumomediastinum or pneumothorax. Mortality and the use of IPPV at 30 days was similar in the HFOV and CV groups. The rate of intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) of any grade is increased in infants treated with HFOV, RR 1.77 (1.06,2.96), RD 0.156 (0.020, 0. 291). Thus for every six infants (95% CI 3, 50) given rescue HFOV, one IVH of any grade is caused. There is a stronger but non-significant trend towards an increase in the more severe grades 3 or 4 IVH. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient information on the use of rescue HFOV to make recommendations for practice. The small amount of data that exists suggest that harm might outweigh any benefit. Any future use of HFOV as rescue therapy for preterm infants with severe RDS should be within randomized controlled trials and address important outcomes such as longer term pulmonary and neurological function.