Cargando…

Pro/con clinical debate: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation is better than conventional ventilation for premature infants

Arguably one of the most important advances in critical care medicine in recent years has been the understanding that mechanical ventilators can impart harm and that lung-protective ventilation strategies can save lives. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation appears ideally suited for lung protecti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Courtney, Sherry E, Durand, David J, Asselin, Jeanette M, Eichenwald, Eric C, Stark, Ann R
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2003
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC374363/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14624681
_version_ 1782121277335535616
author Courtney, Sherry E
Durand, David J
Asselin, Jeanette M
Eichenwald, Eric C
Stark, Ann R
author_facet Courtney, Sherry E
Durand, David J
Asselin, Jeanette M
Eichenwald, Eric C
Stark, Ann R
author_sort Courtney, Sherry E
collection PubMed
description Arguably one of the most important advances in critical care medicine in recent years has been the understanding that mechanical ventilators can impart harm and that lung-protective ventilation strategies can save lives. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation appears ideally suited for lung protection at first glance. Two camps of opinion exist, however, even in neonates where this modality has been most extensively studied. In the present debate, the prevailing arguments from each of those camps are made available for the reader to decide.
format Text
id pubmed-374363
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2003
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-3743632004-03-25 Pro/con clinical debate: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation is better than conventional ventilation for premature infants Courtney, Sherry E Durand, David J Asselin, Jeanette M Eichenwald, Eric C Stark, Ann R Crit Care Review Arguably one of the most important advances in critical care medicine in recent years has been the understanding that mechanical ventilators can impart harm and that lung-protective ventilation strategies can save lives. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation appears ideally suited for lung protection at first glance. Two camps of opinion exist, however, even in neonates where this modality has been most extensively studied. In the present debate, the prevailing arguments from each of those camps are made available for the reader to decide. BioMed Central 2003 2003-04-14 /pmc/articles/PMC374363/ /pubmed/14624681 Text en Copyright © 2003 BioMed Central Ltd
spellingShingle Review
Courtney, Sherry E
Durand, David J
Asselin, Jeanette M
Eichenwald, Eric C
Stark, Ann R
Pro/con clinical debate: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation is better than conventional ventilation for premature infants
title Pro/con clinical debate: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation is better than conventional ventilation for premature infants
title_full Pro/con clinical debate: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation is better than conventional ventilation for premature infants
title_fullStr Pro/con clinical debate: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation is better than conventional ventilation for premature infants
title_full_unstemmed Pro/con clinical debate: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation is better than conventional ventilation for premature infants
title_short Pro/con clinical debate: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation is better than conventional ventilation for premature infants
title_sort pro/con clinical debate: high-frequency oscillatory ventilation is better than conventional ventilation for premature infants
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC374363/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14624681
work_keys_str_mv AT courtneysherrye proconclinicaldebatehighfrequencyoscillatoryventilationisbetterthanconventionalventilationforprematureinfants
AT duranddavidj proconclinicaldebatehighfrequencyoscillatoryventilationisbetterthanconventionalventilationforprematureinfants
AT asselinjeanettem proconclinicaldebatehighfrequencyoscillatoryventilationisbetterthanconventionalventilationforprematureinfants
AT eichenwaldericc proconclinicaldebatehighfrequencyoscillatoryventilationisbetterthanconventionalventilationforprematureinfants
AT starkannr proconclinicaldebatehighfrequencyoscillatoryventilationisbetterthanconventionalventilationforprematureinfants