High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation for the Prevention of Chronic Lung Disease of Prematurity

Abstract

The results obtained with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and conventional ventilation do not differ significantly in the early treatment of respiratory disease in very preterm infants. Assessment of long-term effects will require additional follow-up.

Respiratory function of very prematurely born infants at follow up: influence of sex

“…A potential weakness, however, is that the study population was originally recruited to determine the effect of two different methods of respiratory support. 8 No significant differences in the lung function results were found with regard to the randomised mode of respiratory support, 9 and the proportions of male and female infants supported by high frequency oscillation ventilation who had lung function measurements at follow up were similar (table 1). Hence, we feel it was appropriate to assess the effect of sex on lung function using this study population.…”

Respiratory morbidity at follow-up of small-for-gestational-age infants born very prematurely

“…Data were examined from infants recruited into the UKOS, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial conducted between August 1998 and January 2001 (31). Infants were randomized to either highfrequency oscillation or conventional mechanical ventilation within 1 h of birth.…”

“…More recent standards produced from the United States (30) are based on larger numbers, but their ethnic mix is different from that in the UK study and so they were not suitable. The infants included in the current study had been entered into a randomized trial examining the efficacy of high-frequency oscillation and conventional mechanical ventilation as modes of respiratory support for very prematurely born infants (31). We have, however, previously shown that both short-term (31) and 2-y follow-up (32) outcomes were similar in the two groups.…”

Neonatal ventilators: how do they differ?

“…However, it is plausible that this difference might be more attributable to the use of SIMV in the control group, and that if A/C had been used, it might have even disappeared. Johnson et al 38 reported the results of the UKOS study, a comparison of HFOV with time-cycled, pressure-limited ventilation in infants of 23 to 28 weeks gestation, and found no reduction in CLD. The Cochrane review shows no difference in mortality, but there are some trends favoring HFOV, including decreased CLD (oxygen need at 28 to 30 days) in survivors, decreased death or CLD (oxygen need at 28 to 30 days) and decreased CLD (oxygen at 36 to 37 weeks' PMA).…”