Partial liquid ventilation for the prevention of mortality and morbidity in paediatric acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome are syndromes of severe respiratory failure. Children with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome have high mortality and the survivors have significant morbidity. Partial liquid ventilation is proposed as a less injurious form of respiratory support for these children. Uncontrolled studies in adults have shown improvements in gas exchange and lung compliance with partial liquid ventilation. A single uncontrolled study in six children with acute respiratory syndrome showed some improvement in gas exchange during three hours of partial liquid ventilation. This review was originally published in 2004, updated in 2009 and again in 2012.
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether partial liquid ventilation reduces mortality or morbidity, or both, in children with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. SEARCH
METHODS: In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 11); CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature) via Ovid (1982 to November 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to November 2011); and Ovid EMBASE (1982 to November 2011). The search was last performed in August 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared partial liquid ventilation with other forms of ventilation in children (aged 28 days to 18 years) with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Trials had to report one or more of the following: mortality; duration of mechanical ventilation, respiratory support, oxygen therapy, stay in the intensive care unit, or stay in hospital; infection; long-term cognitive impairment, neurodevelopmental progress, or other long-term morbidities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently evaluated the quality of the relevant studies and extracted the data from the included studies. MAIN
RESULTS: Only one study enrolling 182 patients (reported as an abstract in conference proceedings) was identified and found eligible for inclusion; the authors reported only limited results. The trial was stopped prematurely and was, therefore, under-powered to detect any significant differences and at high risk of bias. The only available outcome of clinical significance was 28-day mortality. There was no statistically significant difference between groups, with a relative risk for 28-day mortality in the partial liquid ventilation group of 1.54 (95% confidence interval 0.82 to 2.9). AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from RCTs to support or refute the use of partial liquid ventilation in children with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Adequately powered, high quality RCTs are still needed to assess its efficacy. Clinically relevant outcome measures should be assessed (mortality at discharge and later, duration of both respiratory support and hospital stay, and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes). The studies should be published in full.