Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Comprehensively 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.

Methods

To 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.

Results

We 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.

Conclusions

Although 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.

SUBMITTER: Gu XL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4095578 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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.

Gu Xiao-ling XL Wu Guan-nan GN Yao Yan-wen YW Shi Dong-hong DH Song Yong Y

Critical care (London, England) 20140530 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Comprehensively 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.<h4>Methods</h4>To 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 Direc ...[more]

PMID: 24887179

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo achieve gas exchange goals and mitigate lung injury, infants who fail with conventional ventilation (CV) are generally switched to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV). Although preferred in many neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), research on this type of rescue HFOV has not been reported recently.MethodsAn online registry database for a multicenter, prospective study was set to evaluate factors affecting the response of newborn infants to rescue HFOV treatment. The study population consisted of 372 infants with CV failure after at least 4 hours of treatment in 23 participating NICUs. Patients were grouped according to their final outcome as survived (Group S) or as died or received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (Group D/E). Patients' demographic characteristics and underlying diseases in addition to their ventilator settings, arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis results at 0, 1, 4, and 24 hours, type of device, ventilation duration, and complications were compared between groups.ResultsHFOV as rescue treatment was successful in 58.1% of patients. Demographic and treatment parameters were not different between groups, except that infants in Group D/E had lower birthweight (BW) (1655 ± 1091 vs. 1858 ± 1027 g, p = 0.006), a higher initial FiO2 setting (83% vs. 72%, p < 0.001), and a higher rate of nitric oxide exposure (21.8% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.004) in comparison to infants who survived (Group S). The initial cut-offs for a successful response on ABG were defined as pH >7.065 (OR: 19.74, 95% CI 4.83-80.6, p < 0.001), HCO3 >16.35 mmol/L (OR: 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.1, p = 0.006), and lactate level <3.75 mmol/L (OR: 1.09%95 CI 1.01-1.16, p = 0.006). Rescue HFOV duration was associated with retinopathy of prematurity (p = 0.005) and moderate or severe chronic lung disease (p < 0.001), but not with patent ductus arteriosus or intraventricular hemorrhage, in survivors (p > 0.05).ConclusionRescue HFOV as defined for this population was successful in more than half of the patients with CV failure. Although the response was not associated with gestational age, underlying disease, device used, or initial MV settings, it seemed to be more effective in patients with higher BW and those not requiring nitric oxide. Initial pH, HCO3, and lactate levels on ABG may be used as predictors of a response to rescue HFOV.

Project description:BackgroundHigh-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) use was associated with greater mortality in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Nevertheless, HFOV is still frequently used as rescue therapy in paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS). In view of the limited evidence for HFOV in PARDS and evidence demonstrating harm in adult patients with ARDS, we hypothesized that HFOV use compared to other modes of mechanical ventilation is associated with increased mortality in PARDS.MethodsPatients with PARDS from 10 paediatric intensive care units across Asia from 2009 to 2015 were identified. Data on epidemiology and clinical outcomes were collected. Patients on HFOV were compared to patients on other modes of ventilation. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality and secondary outcomes were 28-day ventilator- (VFD) and intensive care unit- (IFD) free days. Genetic matching (GM) method was used to analyse the association between HFOV treatment with the primary outcome. Additionally, we performed a sensitivity analysis, including propensity score (PS) matching, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and marginal structural modelling (MSM) to estimate the treatment effect.ResultsA total of 328 patients were included. In the first 7 days of PARDS, 122/328 (37.2%) patients were supported with HFOV. There were significant differences in baseline oxygenation index (OI) between the HFOV and non-HFOV groups (18.8 [12.0, 30.2] vs. 7.7 [5.1, 13.1] respectively; p < 0.001). A total of 118 pairs were matched in the GM method which found a significant association between HFOV with 28-day mortality in PARDS [odds ratio 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3, 4.4, p value 0.01]. VFD was indifferent between the HFOV and non-HFOV group [mean difference - 1.3 (95%CI - 3.4, 0.9); p = 0.29] but IFD was significantly lower in the HFOV group [- 2.5 (95%CI - 4.9, - 0.5); p = 0.03]. From the sensitivity analysis, PS matching, IPTW and MSM all showed consistent direction of HFOV treatment effect in PARDS.ConclusionThe use of HFOV was associated with increased 28-day mortality in PARDS. This study suggests caution but does not eliminate equivocality and a randomized controlled trial is justified to examine the true association.

Project description:IntroductionTheoretically, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) achieves all goals of a lung-protective ventilatory mode and seems ideal for the treatment of adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, its effects on mortality and adverse clinical outcomes remain uncertain given the paucity of high-quality studies in this area. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of HFOV in adults with ARDS.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through February 2014 to retrieve randomized controlled trials of HFOV in adult ARDS patients. Two independent reviewers extracted data on study methods, clinical and physiological outcomes and adverse events. The primary outcome was 30-day or hospital mortality. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Mortality, oxygenation and adverse effects of HFOV were compared to those of conventional mechanical ventilation. A random-effects model was applied for meta-analysis.ResultsA total of five trials randomly assigning 1,580 patients met inclusion criteria. Pooled data showed that HFOV significantly improved oxygenation on day one of therapy (four studies; 24% higher; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11 to 40%; P <0.01). However, HFOV did not reduce mortality risk (five studies; risk ratio (RR) 1.04; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.31; P?=?0.71) and two early terminated studies suggested a harmful effect of HFOV in ARDS (two studies; RR 1.33; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.62; P <0.01). Safety profiles showed that HFOV was associated with a trend toward increased risk of barotrauma (five studies; RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.72; P?=?0.34) and unfavorable hemodynamics (five studies; RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.39; P?=?0.12).ConclusionsHFOV improved oxygenation in adult patients with ARDS; however, it did not confer a survival benefit and might cause harm in the era of lung-protective ventilation strategy. The evidence suggests that HFOV should not be a routine practice in ARDS and further studies specifically selecting patients for this ventilator mode should be pursued.

Dataset Information

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.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets