We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Feasibility of Mid-Frequency Ventilation Among Infants With Respiratory Distress Syndrome.
Respiratory Care 2017 April
BACKGROUND: Mid-frequency ventilation, a strategy of using conventional ventilators at high frequencies, may reduce lung injury but has had limited evaluation in neonates. Hence, a randomized crossover study was designed to assess the feasibility of using mid-frequency ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome.
METHODS: Twelve preterm infants (≥500 g and ≥24 weeks gestational age) who were receiving pressure-limited conventional ventilation with frequencies ≤60 breaths/min for respiratory distress syndrome were randomized to periods of mid-frequency ventilation (conventional ventilation with the fastest frequency up to 150 breaths/min that gave complete inspiration and expiration) or conventional ventilation (frequency ≤60 breaths/min), each lasting 2 h using a crossover design. Ventilator parameters were adjusted to maintain the O2 saturation and transcutaneous CO2 at baseline.
RESULTS: Mean peak inspiratory pressure (15 ± 4 cm H2 O vs 18 ± 4 cm H2 O, P < .001), Δ pressure (9.8 ± 3.3 cm H2 O vs 13.5 ± 3.9 cm H2 O, P < .001), and tidal volume (2.6 ± 0.4 mL/kg vs 4.6 ± 0.8 mL/kg, P < .001) were lower, but mean airway pressure (8.9 ± 1.9 cm H2 O vs 8.4 ± 1.6 cm H2 O, P = .02) and measured PEEP (5.1 ± 0.5 cm H2 O vs 4.4 ± 0.5 cm H2 O, P < .001) were higher with mid-frequency compared with conventional ventilation. FIO2 , gas exchange, and hemodynamic parameters were not affected.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this small study, mid-frequency ventilation among preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome is feasible. Further larger and longer duration trials are necessary to validate our findings. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01242462).
METHODS: Twelve preterm infants (≥500 g and ≥24 weeks gestational age) who were receiving pressure-limited conventional ventilation with frequencies ≤60 breaths/min for respiratory distress syndrome were randomized to periods of mid-frequency ventilation (conventional ventilation with the fastest frequency up to 150 breaths/min that gave complete inspiration and expiration) or conventional ventilation (frequency ≤60 breaths/min), each lasting 2 h using a crossover design. Ventilator parameters were adjusted to maintain the O2 saturation and transcutaneous CO2 at baseline.
RESULTS: Mean peak inspiratory pressure (15 ± 4 cm H2 O vs 18 ± 4 cm H2 O, P < .001), Δ pressure (9.8 ± 3.3 cm H2 O vs 13.5 ± 3.9 cm H2 O, P < .001), and tidal volume (2.6 ± 0.4 mL/kg vs 4.6 ± 0.8 mL/kg, P < .001) were lower, but mean airway pressure (8.9 ± 1.9 cm H2 O vs 8.4 ± 1.6 cm H2 O, P = .02) and measured PEEP (5.1 ± 0.5 cm H2 O vs 4.4 ± 0.5 cm H2 O, P < .001) were higher with mid-frequency compared with conventional ventilation. FIO2 , gas exchange, and hemodynamic parameters were not affected.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this small study, mid-frequency ventilation among preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome is feasible. Further larger and longer duration trials are necessary to validate our findings. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01242462).
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app