FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 348:1181-1182 March 20, 2003 Number 12 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear Related Article by Courtney, S. E. PubMed Citation

To the Editor: In the studies of high-frequency ventilation reported in the August 29 issue by Johnson et al.¹ and Courtney et al.,² there were important differences in the application of conventional ventilation in the control groups, which may explain why these trials had conflicting results. The trial by Johnson et al. required conventional ventilation to be started at a rate of 60 breaths per minute, in accordance with previous studies of optimal mechanical ventilation.^3,4 Courtney et al., however, set 60 breaths per minute as the maximal rate, which made it likely that lower rates and therefore higher tidal volumes . . . [Full Text of this Article]

HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.