High frequency oscillation versus conventional ventilation: is one superior?

High frequency oscillation versus conventional ventilation: is one superior?

Open the lung with high-frequency oscillation ventilation or conventional mechanical ventilation? It may not matter!

The 'open lung' approach has been proposed as a reasonable ventilation strategy to mitigate ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and possibly reduce acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)-related mortality. However, several randomized clinical trials have failed to show any significant clinical benefit of a ventilation strategy applying higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and lo...

High-frequency oscillation ventilation for hypercapnic failure of conventional ventilation in pulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome

INTRODUCTION High-frequency oscillation ventilation (HFOV) is regarded as particularly lung protective. Recently, HFOV has been shown to be not beneficial for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients in general. Due to its special physical effects, it could be beneficial, however, in inhomogeneous ARDS. This study evaluates the effect of HFOV on PaCO2 removal in hypercapnic patients ...

High-frequency oscillatory ventilation is not superior to conventional mechanical ventilation in surfactant-treated rabbits with lung injury.

The aim of this study was to compare high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) with and without surfactant in the treatment of surfactant-deficient rabbits. A previously described saline lung lavage model of lung injury in adult rabbits was used. The efficacy of each therapy was assessed by evaluating gas exchange, lung deflation stability and ...

Elective High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation versus Conventional Ventilation for Acute Pulmonary Dysfunction in Preterm Infants

CV and usually in the first 12 h of life. Data Collection and Analysis: The methodological quality of each trial was independently reviewed by the various authors. The standard effect measures are relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD). From 1/RD the number needed to treat to produce one outcome were calculated. For all measures of effect, 95% confidence intervals were used. In subgroup an...