BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is associated with mortality of 10% to 50%. Several investigators have reported outcomes from centers using high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in their management of CDH, but there are no recent reports on use of high-frequency jet ventilation. METHODS: During the study period from January 2001 until August 2007, infants with CDH who were cared for at Duke University Medical Center received high-frequency jet ventilation as a rescue mode of high-frequency ventilation. We compared actual survival with predicted survival for infants treated only with conventional ventilation vs those rescued with high-frequency jet ventilation after failing conventional ventilation. RESULTS: Survival for the 16 infants that received high-frequency jet ventilation was predicted to be 63%; actual survival was 75%. Survival for the 15 infants that received only conventional ventilation was predicted to be 83%; actual survival was 87%. We observed no significant survival benefit for high-frequency jet ventilation, 8.0% (95 confidence interval, -22.0% to 38.1%; P = .59). CONCLUSIONS: Although our sample size was small, we conclude with consideration of the absolute results, the degree of illness of the infants, and the biologic plausibility for the intervention that high-frequency jet ventilation is an acceptable rescue ventilation mode for infants with CDH. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE:Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is associated with mortality of 10% to 50%. Several investigators have reported outcomes from centers using high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in their management of CDH, but there are no recent reports on use of high-frequency jet ventilation. METHODS: During the study period from January 2001 until August 2007, infants with CDH who were cared for at Duke University Medical Center received high-frequency jet ventilation as a rescue mode of high-frequency ventilation. We compared actual survival with predicted survival for infants treated only with conventional ventilation vs those rescued with high-frequency jet ventilation after failing conventional ventilation. RESULTS: Survival for the 16 infants that received high-frequency jet ventilation was predicted to be 63%; actual survival was 75%. Survival for the 15 infants that received only conventional ventilation was predicted to be 83%; actual survival was 87%. We observed no significant survival benefit for high-frequency jet ventilation, 8.0% (95 confidence interval, -22.0% to 38.1%; P = .59). CONCLUSIONS: Although our sample size was small, we conclude with consideration of the absolute results, the degree of illness of the infants, and the biologic plausibility for the intervention that high-frequency jet ventilation is an acceptable rescue ventilation mode for infants with CDH. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: L Desfrere; P H Jarreau; M Dommergues; A Brunhes; P Hubert; C Nihoul-Fekete; P Mussat; G Moriette Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: A Cacciari; G Ruggeri; M Mordenti; P L Ceccarelli; E Baccarini; A Pigna; A Gentili Journal: Eur J Pediatr Surg Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 2.191
Authors: Cynthia D Downard; Tom Jaksic; Jennifer J Garza; Alexander Dzakovic; Luanne Nemes; Russell W Jennings; Jay M Wilson Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Pramod Puligandla; Erik Skarsgard; Martin Offringa; Ian Adatia; Robert Baird; Michelle Bailey; Mary Brindle; Priscilla Chiu; Arthur Cogswell; Shyamala Dakshinamurti; Hélène Flageole; Richard Keijzer; Douglas McMillan; Titilayo Oluyomi-Obi; Thomas Pennaforte; Thérèse Perreault; Bruno Piedboeuf; S. Patricia Riley; Greg Ryan; Anne Synnes; Michael Traynor Journal: CMAJ Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Michaela Kollisch-Singule; Harry Ramcharran; Joshua Satalin; Sarah Blair; Louis A Gatto; Penny L Andrews; Nader M Habashi; Gary F Nieman; Adel Bougatef Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 4.566