The Journal of pediatrics
-
The Journal of pediatrics · Jun 1990
Multicenter Study Comparative Study Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical TrialHigh-frequency oscillatory ventilation compared with conventional mechanical ventilation in the treatment of respiratory failure in preterm infants: assessment of pulmonary function at 9 months of corrected age. HiFi Study Group.
In a comparison of the outcome of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFO) and conventional mechanical ventilation (intermittent mandatory ventilation (IMV] in newborn infants, the degree of late pulmonary damage in these infants was assessed in a multicenter trial by examining their pulmonary status, including pulmonary function test results at 9 months of corrected age. A total of 432 infants were followed, 222 in the IMV group and 210 in the HFO group. Two-hundred twenty-three infants had their pulmonary mechanics measured, 118 in the IMV group and 105 in the HFO group. ⋯ Forced expiratory flow at functional residual capacity was decreased (132 +/- 86 vs 135 +/- 92 ml/sec in the IMV and HFO groups, respectively), peak-to-peak esophageal pressure change was elevated (14.4 +/- 5.7 vs 13.5 +/- 5.7 cm H2O), dynamic compliance was in the low normal range (1.2 +/- 0.5 vs 1.3 +/- 0.6 ml/cm H2O/kg), and total pulmonary resistance was elevated (63 +/- 43 vs 57 +/- 34 cm H2O/L/sec) when the measurements were compared with normal values. The results indicate that in both groups, 30% to 40% of infants survived with chronic pulmonary changes similar to those described in infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia. The use of high-frequency ventilation, in comparison with IMV, did not improve long-term pulmonary outcome.