OBJECTIVE: To determine clinical and physiological effects of high frequency oscillation compared with conventional ventilation in patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases to March 2010, conference proceedings, bibliographies, and primary investigators. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials of high frequency oscillation compared with conventional ventilation in adults or children with acute lung injury/ARDS. Data selection Three authors independently extracted data on clinical, physiological, and safety outcomes according to a predefined protocol. We contacted investigators of all included studies to clarify methods and obtain additional data. Analyses used random effects models. RESULTS: Eight randomised controlled trials (n=419 patients) were included; almost all patients had ARDS. Methodological quality was good. The ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to inspired fraction of oxygen at 24, 48, and 72 hours was 16-24% higher in patients receiving high frequency oscillation. There were no significant differences in oxygenation index because mean airway pressure rose by 22-33% in patients receiving high frequency oscillation (P</=0.01). In patients randomised to high frequency oscillation, mortality was significantly reduced (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.98, P=0.03; six trials, 365 patients, 160 deaths), and treatment failure (refractory hypoxaemia, hypercapnoea, hypotension, or barotrauma) resulting in discontinuation of assigned therapy was less likely (0.67, 0.46 to 0.99, P=0.04; five trials, 337 patients, 73 events). Other risks were similar. There was substantial heterogeneity between trials for physiological (I(2)=21-95%) but not clinical (I(2)=0%) outcomes. Pooled results were based on few events for most clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: High frequency oscillation might improve survival and is unlikely to cause harm. As ongoing large multicentre trials will not be completed for several years, these data help clinicians who currently use or are considering this technique for patients with ARDS.
OBJECTIVE: To determine clinical and physiological effects of high frequency oscillation compared with conventional ventilation in patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases to March 2010, conference proceedings, bibliographies, and primary investigators. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials of high frequency oscillation compared with conventional ventilation in adults or children with acute lung injury/ARDS. Data selection Three authors independently extracted data on clinical, physiological, and safety outcomes according to a predefined protocol. We contacted investigators of all included studies to clarify methods and obtain additional data. Analyses used random effects models. RESULTS: Eight randomised controlled trials (n=419 patients) were included; almost all patients had ARDS. Methodological quality was good. The ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to inspired fraction of oxygen at 24, 48, and 72 hours was 16-24% higher in patients receiving high frequency oscillation. There were no significant differences in oxygenation index because mean airway pressure rose by 22-33% in patients receiving high frequency oscillation (P</=0.01). In patients randomised to high frequency oscillation, mortality was significantly reduced (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.98, P=0.03; six trials, 365 patients, 160 deaths), and treatment failure (refractory hypoxaemia, hypercapnoea, hypotension, or barotrauma) resulting in discontinuation of assigned therapy was less likely (0.67, 0.46 to 0.99, P=0.04; five trials, 337 patients, 73 events). Other risks were similar. There was substantial heterogeneity between trials for physiological (I(2)=21-95%) but not clinical (I(2)=0%) outcomes. Pooled results were based on few events for most clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: High frequency oscillation might improve survival and is unlikely to cause harm. As ongoing large multicentre trials will not be completed for several years, these data help clinicians who currently use or are considering this technique for patients with ARDS.
Authors: Nicola Latronico; Marta Metelli; Maddalena Turin; Simone Piva; Frank A Rasulo; Cosetta Minelli Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Andrew Rhodes; Laura E Evans; Waleed Alhazzani; Mitchell M Levy; Massimo Antonelli; Ricard Ferrer; Anand Kumar; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Mark E Nunnally; Bram Rochwerg; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Derek C Angus; Djillali Annane; Richard J Beale; Geoffrey J Bellinghan; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig Coopersmith; Daniel P De Backer; Craig J French; Seitaro Fujishima; Herwig Gerlach; Jorge Luis Hidalgo; Steven M Hollenberg; Alan E Jones; Dilip R Karnad; Ruth M Kleinpell; Younsuk Koh; Thiago Costa Lisboa; Flavia R Machado; John J Marini; John C Marshall; John E Mazuski; Lauralyn A McIntyre; Anthony S McLean; Sangeeta Mehta; Rui P Moreno; John Myburgh; Paolo Navalesi; Osamu Nishida; Tiffany M Osborn; Anders Perner; Colleen M Plunkett; Marco Ranieri; Christa A Schorr; Maureen A Seckel; Christopher W Seymour; Lisa Shieh; Khalid A Shukri; Steven Q Simpson; Mervyn Singer; B Taylor Thompson; Sean R Townsend; Thomas Van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; W Joost Wiersinga; Janice L Zimmerman; R Phillip Dellinger Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: David W Kaczka; Jacob Herrmann; C Elroy Zonneveld; David G Tingay; Anna Lavizzari; Peter B Noble; J Jane Pillow Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 7.892