The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Original Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 347:643-652 August 29, 2002 Number 9
NextNext

High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation for Very-Low-Birth-Weight Infants
Sherry E. Courtney, M.D., David J. Durand, M.D., Jeanette M. Asselin, R.R.T., M.S., Mark L. Hudak, M.D., Judy L. Aschner, M.D., Craig T. Shoemaker, M.D., for the Neonatal Ventilation Study Group

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF
-PDA Full Text
-PowerPoint Slide Set

Commentary
-Perspective
 by Slutsky, A. S.
-Editorial
 by Stark, A. R.
-Letters

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background The efficacy and safety of early high-frequency oscillatory ventilation as compared with conventional synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation for the treatment of infants with very low birth weight have not been established.

Methods We conducted a randomized, multicenter clinical trial to determine whether infants treated with early high-frequency oscillatory ventilation were more likely than infants treated with synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation to be alive without requiring supplemental oxygen at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age. Eligible infants weighed 601 to 1200 g at birth, were less than four hours of age, had received one dose of surfactant, and required ventilation with a mean airway pressure of at least 6 cm of water and a fraction of inspired oxygen of at least 0.25. Infants were stratified according to birth weight and exposure to prenatal corticosteroids and then randomly assigned to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation or synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation. Ventilation was managed according to protocols designed to optimize lung inflation and blood gas values.

Results Five hundred infants were enrolled in the study. Infants randomly assigned to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation were successfully extubated earlier than infants assigned to synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (P<0.001). Of infants assigned to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, 56 percent were alive without a need for supplemental oxygen at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age, as compared with 47 percent of those receiving synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (P=0.046). There was no difference between the groups in the risk of intracranial hemorrhage, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, or other complications.

Conclusions There was a small but significant benefit of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in terms of the pulmonary outcome for very-low-birth-weight infants without an increase in the occurrence of other complications of premature birth.


Source Information

From the Division of Neonatology, Cooper Hospital–University Medical Center, Camden, N.J. (S.E.C.); the Division of Neonatology (D.J.D.) and the Neonatal–Pediatric Research Group (J.M.A.), Children's Hospital and Research Center at Oakland, Oakland, Calif.; the Division of Neonatology, University of Florida at Jacksonville, and the Division of Neonatology, Wolfson Children's Hospital, Jacksonville, Fla. (M.L.H.); the Division of Neonatology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C. (J.L.A.); and MeritCare Children's Hospital, Fargo, N.D. (C.T.S.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Courtney at the Division of Neonatology, Schneider Children's Hospital, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, 270-05 76th Ave., New Hyde Park, NY 11040, or at scourtney{at}lij.edu.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

High-Frequency Ventilation
Thome U. H., Pohlandt F., Kabra N. S., Courtney S. E., Durand D. J., Asselin J. M.
Extract | Full Text | PDF  
N Engl J Med 2003; 348:1181-1182, Mar 20, 2003. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.