High-Frequency Ventilation Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in Pediatric Respiratory Failure

Arnold, John H.; Hanson, James L.; Toro-Figuero, Luis O.; Berens, Richard J.

doi:10.1097/00003246-199508000-00023

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10 The effect of age on the outcomes of patients receiving HFOV for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is controversial. Arnold et al 21 reported increased mortality in children 5 years or older receiving HFOV. In a randomized, multicenter, noncrossover clinical trial in very low-birth-weight infants with respiratory failure, infants randomly assigned to HFOV were successfully extubated earlier than infants assigned to CMV, with improved mortality and less need for supplemental oxygen.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation and Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in Pediatric Respiratory Failure

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation and Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in Pediatric Respiratory Failure

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Importantly, the efficacy of HFOV is likely associated with the age of the patient, as Arnold et al . reported that patients older than five years had dramatically increased mortality compared with patients younger than five years, when treated with HFOV [ 33 ]. Additionally, the earlier Cochrane review [ 27 ] found only two small RCTs and was not powerful enough to draw definitive conclusions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation more effective and safer than conventional protective ventilation in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Yao

et al. 2014

Crit Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionComprehensively evaluating the efficacy and safety of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is important to allow clinicians who are using or considering this intervention to make appropriate decisions.MethodsTo find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFOV with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) as an initial treatment for adult ARDS patients, we searched electronic databases (including PubMed, MedLine, Springer Link, Elsevier Science Direct, ISI web of knowledge, and EMBASE) with the following terms: “acute respiratory distress syndrome”, “acute lung injury”, and “high frequency oscillation ventilation”. Additional sources included reference lists from the identified primary studies and relevant meta-analyses. Two investigators independently screened articles and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models.ResultsWe included 6 RCTs with a total of 1,608 patients in this meta-analysis. Compared with CMV, HFOV did not significantly reduce the mortality at 30 or 28 days. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.051 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.813 to 1.358). ICU mortality was also not significantly reduced in HFOV group, with a pooled RR of 1.218 (95% CI 0.925 to 1.604). The pooled effect sizes of HFOV for oxygenation failure, ventilation failure and duration of mechanical ventilation were 0.557 (95% CI 0.351 to 0.884), 0.892 (95% CI 0.435 to 1.829) and 0.079 (95% CI −0.045 to 0.203), respectively. The risk of barotrauma and hypotension were similar between the CMV group and HFOV group, with a RR of 1.205 (95% CI 0.834 to 1.742) and a RR of 1.326 (95% CI 0.271 to 6.476), respectively.ConclusionsAlthough HFOV seems not to increase the risk of barotrauma or hypotension, and reduces the risk of oxygenation failure, it does not improve survival in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients.

show abstract

High-frequency ventilation versus conventional ventilation for treatment of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome

Wunsch¹,

Mapstone²

2004

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

High-Frequency Ventilation Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in Pediatric Respiratory Failure

Cited by 4 publications

References 5 publications

Comparison of High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation and Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in Pediatric Respiratory Failure

Comparison of High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation and Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in Pediatric Respiratory Failure

Is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation more effective and safer than conventional protective ventilation in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

High-frequency ventilation versus conventional ventilation for treatment of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About