Punkaj Gupta1, Jerril W Green2, Xinyu Tang3, Christine M Gall4, Jeffrey M Gossett3, Tom B Rice5, Robert M Kacmarek6, Randall C Wetzel7. 1. Division of Pediatric Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas Medical Center, Little Rock2Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas Medical Center, Little Rock. 2. Division of Pediatric Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas Medical Center, Little Rock. 3. Division of Biostatistics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas Medical Center, Little Rock. 4. Virtual PICU Systems LLC, Los Angeles, California. 5. Virtual PICU Systems LLC, Los Angeles, California5Division of Pediatric Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. 6. Department of Anesthesia, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston7Department of Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. 7. Virtual PICU Systems LLC, Los Angeles, California8Department of Anesthesiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles9Division of Pediatric Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine, University of S.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Outcomes associated with use of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) in children with acute respiratory failure have not been established. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of HFOV with those of conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) in children with acute respiratory failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a retrospective, observational study using deidentified data obtained from all consecutive patients receiving mechanical ventilation aged 1 month to 18 years in the Virtual PICU System database from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2011. The study population was divided into 2 groups: HFOV and CMV. The HFOV group was further divided into early and late HFOV. Propensity score matching was performed as a 1-to-1 match of HFOV and CMV patients. A similar matching process was performed for early HFOV and CMV patients. EXPOSURE: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Length of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, ICU mortality, and standardized mortality ratio (SMR). RESULTS: A total of 9177 patients from 98 hospitals qualified for inclusion. Of these, 902 (9.8%) received HFOV, whereas 8275 (90.2%) received CMV. A total of 1764 patients were matched to compare HFOV and CMV, whereas 942 patients were matched to compare early HFOV and CMV. Length of mechanical ventilation (CMV vs HFOV: 14.6 vs 20.3 days, P < .001; CMV vs early HFOV: 14.6 vs 15.9 days, P < .001), ICU length of stay (19.1 vs 24.9 days, P < .001; 19.3 vs 19.5 days, P = .03), and mortality (8.4% vs 17.3%, P < .001; 8.3% vs 18.1%, P < .001) were significantly higher in HFOV and early HFOV patients compared with CMV patients. The SMR in the HFOV group was 2.00 (95% CI, 1.71-2.35) compared with an SMR in the CMV group of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.68-1.07). The SMR in the early HFOV group was 1.62 (95% CI, 1.31-2.01) compared with an SMR in the CMV group of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.62-1.16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Application of HFOV and early HFOV compared with CMV in children with acute respiratory failure is associated with worse outcomes. The results of our study are similar to recently published studies in adults comparing these 2 modalities of ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome.
IMPORTANCE: Outcomes associated with use of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) in children with acute respiratory failure have not been established. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of HFOV with those of conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) in children with acute respiratory failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a retrospective, observational study using deidentified data obtained from all consecutive patients receiving mechanical ventilation aged 1 month to 18 years in the Virtual PICU System database from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2011. The study population was divided into 2 groups: HFOV and CMV. The HFOV group was further divided into early and late HFOV. Propensity score matching was performed as a 1-to-1 match of HFOV and CMVpatients. A similar matching process was performed for early HFOV and CMVpatients. EXPOSURE: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Length of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, ICU mortality, and standardized mortality ratio (SMR). RESULTS: A total of 9177 patients from 98 hospitals qualified for inclusion. Of these, 902 (9.8%) received HFOV, whereas 8275 (90.2%) received CMV. A total of 1764 patients were matched to compare HFOV and CMV, whereas 942 patients were matched to compare early HFOV and CMV. Length of mechanical ventilation (CMV vs HFOV: 14.6 vs 20.3 days, P < .001; CMV vs early HFOV: 14.6 vs 15.9 days, P < .001), ICU length of stay (19.1 vs 24.9 days, P < .001; 19.3 vs 19.5 days, P = .03), and mortality (8.4% vs 17.3%, P < .001; 8.3% vs 18.1%, P < .001) were significantly higher in HFOV and early HFOVpatients compared with CMVpatients. The SMR in the HFOV group was 2.00 (95% CI, 1.71-2.35) compared with an SMR in the CMV group of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.68-1.07). The SMR in the early HFOV group was 1.62 (95% CI, 1.31-2.01) compared with an SMR in the CMV group of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.62-1.16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Application of HFOV and early HFOV compared with CMV in children with acute respiratory failure is associated with worse outcomes. The results of our study are similar to recently published studies in adults comparing these 2 modalities of ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Authors: Scott L Weiss; Lisa A Asaro; Heidi R Flori; Geoffrey L Allen; David Wypij; Martha A Q Curley Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Courtney M Rowan; Margaret J Klein; Deyin Doreen Hsing; Mary K Dahmer; Philip C Spinella; Guillaume Emeriaud; Amanda B Hassinger; Byron E Piñeres-Olave; Heidi R Flori; Bereketeab Haileselassie; Yolanda M Lopez-Fernandez; Ranjit S Chima; Steven L Shein; Aline B Maddux; Jon Lillie; Ledys Izquierdo; Martin C J Kneyber; Lincoln S Smith; Robinder G Khemani; Neal J Thomas; Nadir Yehya Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Matt S Zinter; Steven G DuBois; Aaron Spicer; Katherine Matthay; Anil Sapru Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Courtney M Rowan; Ashley Loomis; Jennifer McArthur; Lincoln S Smith; Shira J Gertz; Julie C Fitzgerald; Mara E Nitu; Elizabeth As Moser; Deyin D Hsing; Christine N Duncan; Kris M Mahadeo; Jerelyn Moffet; Mark W Hall; Emily L Pinos; Robert F Tamburro; Ira M Cheifetz Journal: Respir Care Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 2.258
Authors: Scot T Bateman; Santiago Borasino; Lisa A Asaro; Ira M Cheifetz; Shelley Diane; David Wypij; Martha A Q Curley Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Christopher J L Newth; Katherine A Sward; Robinder G Khemani; Kent Page; Kathleen L Meert; Joseph A Carcillo; Thomas P Shanley; Frank W Moler; Murray M Pollack; Heidi J Dalton; David L Wessel; John T Berger; Robert A Berg; Rick E Harrison; Richard Holubkov; Allan Doctor; J Michael Dean; Tammara L Jenkins; Carol E Nicholson Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 3.624