Cargando…

Is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation more effective and safer than conventional protective ventilation in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION: Comprehensively evaluating the efficacy and safety of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is important to allow clinicians who are using or considering this intervention to make appropriate decisions. METHODS: To find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFOV with co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gu, Xiao-ling, Wu, Guan-nan, Yao, Yan-wen, Shi, Dong-hong, Song, Yong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4095578/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24887179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc13900
_version_ 1782326058026008576
author Gu, Xiao-ling
Wu, Guan-nan
Yao, Yan-wen
Shi, Dong-hong
Song, Yong
author_facet Gu, Xiao-ling
Wu, Guan-nan
Yao, Yan-wen
Shi, Dong-hong
Song, Yong
author_sort Gu, Xiao-ling
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Comprehensively evaluating the efficacy and safety of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is important to allow clinicians who are using or considering this intervention to make appropriate decisions. METHODS: To find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFOV with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) as an initial treatment for adult ARDS patients, we searched electronic databases (including PubMed, MedLine, Springer Link, Elsevier Science Direct, ISI web of knowledge, and EMBASE) with the following terms: “acute respiratory distress syndrome”, “acute lung injury”, and “high frequency oscillation ventilation”. Additional sources included reference lists from the identified primary studies and relevant meta-analyses. Two investigators independently screened articles and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. RESULTS: We included 6 RCTs with a total of 1,608 patients in this meta-analysis. Compared with CMV, HFOV did not significantly reduce the mortality at 30 or 28 days. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.051 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.813 to 1.358). ICU mortality was also not significantly reduced in HFOV group, with a pooled RR of 1.218 (95% CI 0.925 to 1.604). The pooled effect sizes of HFOV for oxygenation failure, ventilation failure and duration of mechanical ventilation were 0.557 (95% CI 0.351 to 0.884), 0.892 (95% CI 0.435 to 1.829) and 0.079 (95% CI −0.045 to 0.203), respectively. The risk of barotrauma and hypotension were similar between the CMV group and HFOV group, with a RR of 1.205 (95% CI 0.834 to 1.742) and a RR of 1.326 (95% CI 0.271 to 6.476), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although HFOV seems not to increase the risk of barotrauma or hypotension, and reduces the risk of oxygenation failure, it does not improve survival in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4095578
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40955782014-07-14 Is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation more effective and safer than conventional protective ventilation in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Gu, Xiao-ling Wu, Guan-nan Yao, Yan-wen Shi, Dong-hong Song, Yong Crit Care Research INTRODUCTION: Comprehensively evaluating the efficacy and safety of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is important to allow clinicians who are using or considering this intervention to make appropriate decisions. METHODS: To find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFOV with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) as an initial treatment for adult ARDS patients, we searched electronic databases (including PubMed, MedLine, Springer Link, Elsevier Science Direct, ISI web of knowledge, and EMBASE) with the following terms: “acute respiratory distress syndrome”, “acute lung injury”, and “high frequency oscillation ventilation”. Additional sources included reference lists from the identified primary studies and relevant meta-analyses. Two investigators independently screened articles and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. RESULTS: We included 6 RCTs with a total of 1,608 patients in this meta-analysis. Compared with CMV, HFOV did not significantly reduce the mortality at 30 or 28 days. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.051 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.813 to 1.358). ICU mortality was also not significantly reduced in HFOV group, with a pooled RR of 1.218 (95% CI 0.925 to 1.604). The pooled effect sizes of HFOV for oxygenation failure, ventilation failure and duration of mechanical ventilation were 0.557 (95% CI 0.351 to 0.884), 0.892 (95% CI 0.435 to 1.829) and 0.079 (95% CI −0.045 to 0.203), respectively. The risk of barotrauma and hypotension were similar between the CMV group and HFOV group, with a RR of 1.205 (95% CI 0.834 to 1.742) and a RR of 1.326 (95% CI 0.271 to 6.476), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although HFOV seems not to increase the risk of barotrauma or hypotension, and reduces the risk of oxygenation failure, it does not improve survival in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. BioMed Central 2014 2014-05-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4095578/ /pubmed/24887179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc13900 Text en Copyright © 2014 Gu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Gu, Xiao-ling
Wu, Guan-nan
Yao, Yan-wen
Shi, Dong-hong
Song, Yong
Is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation more effective and safer than conventional protective ventilation in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title Is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation more effective and safer than conventional protective ventilation in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full Is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation more effective and safer than conventional protective ventilation in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr Is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation more effective and safer than conventional protective ventilation in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation more effective and safer than conventional protective ventilation in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_short Is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation more effective and safer than conventional protective ventilation in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_sort is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation more effective and safer than conventional protective ventilation in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients? a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4095578/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24887179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc13900
work_keys_str_mv AT guxiaoling ishighfrequencyoscillatoryventilationmoreeffectiveandsaferthanconventionalprotectiveventilationinadultacuterespiratorydistresssyndromepatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT wuguannan ishighfrequencyoscillatoryventilationmoreeffectiveandsaferthanconventionalprotectiveventilationinadultacuterespiratorydistresssyndromepatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT yaoyanwen ishighfrequencyoscillatoryventilationmoreeffectiveandsaferthanconventionalprotectiveventilationinadultacuterespiratorydistresssyndromepatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT shidonghong ishighfrequencyoscillatoryventilationmoreeffectiveandsaferthanconventionalprotectiveventilationinadultacuterespiratorydistresssyndromepatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT songyong ishighfrequencyoscillatoryventilationmoreeffectiveandsaferthanconventionalprotectiveventilationinadultacuterespiratorydistresssyndromepatientsametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials