Dataset Information

The impact of high frequency oscillatory ventilation on mortality in paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome.

ABSTRACT:

Background

High-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.

Methods

Patients 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.

Results

A 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.

Conclusion

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Wong JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6995130 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ObjectivesChildren with an immunocompromised condition and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation have high risk of death. Such patients are commonly transitioned to rescue modes of nonconventional ventilation, including airway pressure release ventilation and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, for acute respiratory distress syndrome refractory to conventional ventilation. Our aim was to describe our experience with airway pressure release ventilation and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in children with an immunocompromised condition and acute respiratory distress syndrome refractory to conventional ventilation and to identify factors associated with survival.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingTertiary care, university-affiliated PICU.PatientsSixty pediatric patients with an immunocompromised condition and acute respiratory distress syndrome refractory to conventional ventilation transitioned to either airway pressure release ventilation or high-frequency oscillatory ventilation.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsDemographic data, ventilator settings, arterial blood gases, oxygenation index, and PaO(2)/FIO(2) were recorded before transition to either mode of nonconventional ventilation and at predetermined intervals after transition for up to 5 days. Mortality in the entire cohort was 63% and did not differ between patients transitioned to airway pressure release ventilation and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation. For both airway pressure release ventilation and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, improvements in oxygenation index and PaO(2)/FIO(2) at 24 hours expressed as a fraction of pretransition values (oxygenation index(24)/oxygenation index(pre) and PaO(2)/FIO(224)/PaO(2)/FIO(2pre)) reliably discriminated nonsurvivors from survivors, with receiver operating characteristic areas under the curves between 0.89 and 0.95 (p for all curves < 0.001). Sensitivity-specificity analysis suggested that less than 15% reduction in oxygenation index (90% sensitive, 75% specific) or less than 90% increase in PaO(2)/FIO(2) (80% sensitive, 94% specific) 24 hours after transition to airway pressure release ventilation were the optimal cutoffs to identify nonsurvivors. The comparable values 24 hours after transition to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation were less than 5% reduction in oxygenation index (100% sensitive, 83% specific) or less than 80% increase in PaO(2)/FIO(2) (91% sensitive, 89% specific) to identify nonsurvivors.ConclusionsIn this single-center retrospective study of pediatric patients with an immunocompromised condition and acute respiratory distress syndrome failing conventional ventilation transitioned to either airway pressure release ventilation or high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, improved oxygenation at 24 hours expressed as PaO(2)/FIO(224)/PaO(2)/FIO(2pre) or oxygenation index(24)/oxygenation indexpre reliably discriminates nonsurvivors from survivors. These findings should be prospectively verified.