• Anesthesiology · Apr 2015

    Meta Analysis

    High-frequency Ventilation Does Not Provide Mortality Benefit in Comparison with Conventional Lung-protective Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Meta-analysis of the Randomized Controlled Trials.

    • Souvik Maitra, Sulagna Bhattacharjee, Puneet Khanna, and Dalim K Baidya.
    • From the Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India (S.M., S.B., D.K.B.); and Department of Anaesthesiology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India (P.K.).
    • Anesthesiology. 2015 Apr 1;122(4):841-51.

    BackgroundDespite implementation of lung-protective ventilation strategy, acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with significant mortality, which necessitates the evaluation of ventilatory modes other than conventional lung-protective strategy. This meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials has been undertaken to know whether high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) provides any mortality benefit over conventional ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.MethodsPublished randomized controlled trials comparing HFOV with conventional lung-protective ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in this meta-analysis.ResultsA total 1,759 patient data from seven randomized controlled trials have been analyzed here. Primary outcome of the review is in-hospital/30-day mortality and secondary outcomes are duration of intensive care unit stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, requirement of additional treatment, and complications associated with the interventions. HFOV does not offer any in-hospital/30-day mortality benefit (386 of 886 in HFOV vs. 368 of 873 in conventional ventilation; risk ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.19; P = 0.70) over conventional ventilation. It may also prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference, 1.18 days; 95% CI, 0.00 to 2.35 days; P = 0.05). Duration of intensive care unit stay (mean difference, 1.24 days; 95% CI, -0.08 to 2.56 days; P = 0.06) and requirement of neuromuscular blocker is similar between two treatment arm. Incidence of refractory hypoxemia is significantly less (risk ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.93; P = 0.02) with the use of HFOV. HFOV is not associated with increased incidence of barotrauma and refractory hypotension.ConclusionHFOV should not be used routinely in all adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome as primary ventilation strategy in place of conventional lung-protective ventilation.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…