• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

N Engl J Med. High-Frequency Oscillation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (2)

Giuseppe

Emeritus
[Source: The New England Journal of Medicine, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

Original Article

High-Frequency Oscillation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome


Duncan Young, D.M., Sallie Lamb, D.Phil., Sanjoy Shah, M.D., Iain MacKenzie, M.D., William Tunnicliffe, M.Sc., Ranjit Lall, Ph.D., Kathy Rowan, D.Phil., and Brian H. Cuthbertson, M.D. for the OSCAR Study Group

January 22, 2013 - DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1215716



Abstract

Background

Patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) require mechanical ventilation to maintain arterial oxygenation, but this treatment may produce secondary lung injury. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) may reduce this secondary damage.


Methods

In a multicenter study, we randomly assigned adults requiring mechanical ventilation for ARDS to undergo either HFOV with a Novalung R100 ventilator (Metran) or usual ventilatory care. All the patients had a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO<SUB>2</SUB>) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO<SUB>2</SUB>) of 200 mm Hg (26.7 kPa) or less and an expected duration of ventilation of at least 2 days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality 30 days after randomization.


Results

There was no significant between-group difference in the primary outcome, which occurred in 166 of 398 patients (41.7%) in the HFOV group and 163 of 397 patients (41.1%) in the conventional-ventilation group (P=0.85 by the chi-square test). After adjustment for study center, sex, score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, and the initial PaO<SUB>2</SUB>:FiO<SUB>2</SUB> ratio, the odds ratio for survival in the conventional-ventilation group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.40; P=0.87 by logistic regression).


Conclusions

The use of HFOV had no significant effect on 30-day mortality in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for ARDS. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; OSCAR Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN10416500.)
-
-----
 
Back
Top Bottom