Sanja Zivanovic1, Janet Peacock1, Mireia Alcazar-Paris1, Jessica W Lo1, Alan Lunt1, Neil Marlow1, Sandy Calvert1, Anne Greenough1. 1. Author affiliations: Division of Asthma, Allergy and Lung Biology, Medical Research Council Centre for Allergic Mechanisms in Asthma (S.Z., M.A.-P., A.L., A.G.), and the Division of Health and Social Care Research (J.P., J.W.L.), King's College London, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St. Thomas' National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London (S.Z., J.P., J.W.L., A.L., A.G.), the Institute for Women's Health, University College London (N.M.), and the Department of Child Health, St. George's, University of London (S.C.) - all in London.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Results from an observational study involving neonates suggested that high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), as compared with conventional ventilation, was associated with superior small-airway function at follow-up. Data from randomized trials are needed to confirm this finding. METHODS: We studied 319 adolescents who had been born before 29 weeks of gestation and had been enrolled in a multicenter, randomized trial that compared HFOV with conventional ventilation immediately after birth. The trial involved 797 neonates, of whom 592 survived to hospital discharge. We compared follow-up data from adolescents who had been randomly assigned to HFOV with follow-up data from those who had been randomly assigned to conventional ventilation, with respect to lung function and respiratory health, health-related quality of life, and functional status, as assessed with the use of questionnaires completed when the participants were 11 to 14 years of age. The primary outcome was forced expiratory flow at 75% of the expired vital capacity (FEF75). RESULTS: The HFOV group had superior results on a test of small-airway function (z score for FEF75, -0.97 with HFOV vs. -1.19 with conventional therapy; adjusted difference, 0.23 [95% confidence interval, 0.02 to 0.45]). There were significant differences in favor of HFOV in several other measures of respiratory function, including forced expiratory volume in 1 second, forced vital capacity, peak expiratory flow, diffusing capacity, and impulse-oscillometric findings. As compared with the conventional-therapy group, the HFOV group had significantly higher ratings from teachers in three of eight school subjects assessed, but there were no other significant differences in functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial involving children who had been born extremely prematurely, those who had undergone HFOV, as compared with those who had received conventional ventilation, had superior lung function at 11 to 14 years of age, with no evidence of poorer functional outcomes. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and others.).
BACKGROUND: Results from an observational study involving neonates suggested that high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), as compared with conventional ventilation, was associated with superior small-airway function at follow-up. Data from randomized trials are needed to confirm this finding. METHODS: We studied 319 adolescents who had been born before 29 weeks of gestation and had been enrolled in a multicenter, randomized trial that compared HFOV with conventional ventilation immediately after birth. The trial involved 797 neonates, of whom 592 survived to hospital discharge. We compared follow-up data from adolescents who had been randomly assigned to HFOV with follow-up data from those who had been randomly assigned to conventional ventilation, with respect to lung function and respiratory health, health-related quality of life, and functional status, as assessed with the use of questionnaires completed when the participants were 11 to 14 years of age. The primary outcome was forced expiratory flow at 75% of the expired vital capacity (FEF75). RESULTS: The HFOV group had superior results on a test of small-airway function (z score for FEF75, -0.97 with HFOV vs. -1.19 with conventional therapy; adjusted difference, 0.23 [95% confidence interval, 0.02 to 0.45]). There were significant differences in favor of HFOV in several other measures of respiratory function, including forced expiratory volume in 1 second, forced vital capacity, peak expiratory flow, diffusing capacity, and impulse-oscillometric findings. As compared with the conventional-therapy group, the HFOV group had significantly higher ratings from teachers in three of eight school subjects assessed, but there were no other significant differences in functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial involving children who had been born extremely prematurely, those who had undergone HFOV, as compared with those who had received conventional ventilation, had superior lung function at 11 to 14 years of age, with no evidence of poorer functional outcomes. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and others.).
Authors: G Moriette; J Paris-Llado; H Walti; B Escande; J F Magny; G Cambonie; G Thiriez; S Cantagrel; T Lacaze-Masmonteil; L Storme; T Blanc; J M Liet; C André; B Salanave; G Bréart Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Ward Hofhuis; Marianne W A Huysman; Els C van der Wiel; Wim P J Holland; Wim C J Hop; Govert Brinkhorst; Johan C de Jongste; Peter J F M Merkus Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-12-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Filip Cools; Lisa M Askie; Martin Offringa; Jeanette M Asselin; Sandra A Calvert; Sherry E Courtney; Carlo Dani; David J Durand; Dale R Gerstmann; David J Henderson-Smart; Neil Marlow; Janet L Peacock; J Jane Pillow; Roger F Soll; Ulrich H Thome; Patrick Truffert; Michael D Schreiber; Patrick Van Reempts; Valentina Vendettuoli; Giovanni Vento Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-06-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Alice H Johnson; Janet L Peacock; Anne Greenough; Neil Marlow; Elizabeth S Limb; Louise Marston; Sandra A Calvert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-08-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bozena Nowowiejska; Waldemar Tomalak; Jakub Radliński; Grzegorz Siergiejko; Wojciech Latawiec; Maciej Kaczmarski Journal: Pediatr Pulmonol Date: 2008-12
Authors: Roberta L Keller; Eric C Eichenwald; Anna Maria Hibbs; Elizabeth E Rogers; Katherine C Wai; Dennis M Black; Philip L Ballard; Jeanette M Asselin; William E Truog; Jeffrey D Merrill; Mark C Mammel; Robin H Steinhorn; Rita M Ryan; David J Durand; Catherine M Bendel; Ellen M Bendel-Stenzel; Sherry E Courtney; Ramasubbareddy Dhanireddy; Mark L Hudak; Frances R Koch; Dennis E Mayock; Victor J McKay; Jennifer Helderman; Nicolas F Porta; Rajan Wadhawan; Lisa Palermo; Roberta A Ballard Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2017-01-16 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Brenda B Poindexter; Rui Feng; Barbara Schmidt; Judy L Aschner; Roberta A Ballard; Aaron Hamvas; Anne Marie Reynolds; Pamela A Shaw; Alan H Jobe Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2015-12
Authors: Benjamin W Ackermann; Daniel Klotz; Roland Hentschel; Ulrich H Thome; Anton H van Kaam Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: Rosemary D Higgins; Alan H Jobe; Marion Koso-Thomas; Eduardo Bancalari; Rose M Viscardi; Tina V Hartert; Rita M Ryan; Suhas G Kallapur; Robin H Steinhorn; Girija G Konduri; Stephanie D Davis; Bernard Thebaud; Ronald I Clyman; Joseph M Collaco; Camilia R Martin; Jason C Woods; Neil N Finer; Tonse N K Raju Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: N González-Pacheco; M Sánchez-Luna; C Ramos-Navarro; N Navarro-Patiño; A R-S de la Blanca Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 2.521