Rescue high frequency oscillatory ventilation vs conventional ventilation for infants with severe pulmonary dysfunction born at or near term.

backgroundPulmonary disease is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in term and near term infants. Conventional ventilation (CV) has been used for many years but may lead to lung injury, require the subsequent use of more invasive treatment such as extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or result in death. There are some studies indicating that high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) may be more effective in these infants as compared to CV.

objectivesThe objective of this review is to determine if HFOV, as compared to conventional ventilation, reduces mortality and morbidity in term or near term infants with intractable lung disease without an increase in adverse effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: Standard search methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group were used. These included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conferences and symposia proceedings, expert informants, and journal hand searching by the Cochrane Collaboration. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized trials comparing HFOV and CV in term or near term infants with intractable respiratory failure were included in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group were used. The investigators separately extracted, assessed and coded all data for each study. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion. Data were synthesized using relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD). MAIN

resultsOnly one trial met the inclusion criteria. This rescue trial of 81 infants showed no evidence of a reduction in mortality at 28 days [RR 0.51 (0.05, 5.43)] or in failed therapy on the assigned mode of ventilation requiring cross-over to the other mode [RR 0.73 (0.47, 1.13)]. There were no significant differences in the numbers of patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [RR 2.05 (0.85, 4.92)], days on a ventilator, days in oxygen or days in hospital. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThere are no data from randomized controlled trials supporting the routine use of rescue HFOV in term or near term infants with severe pulmonary dysfunction. The area is complicated by diverse pathology in such infants and by the occurrence of other interventions (surfactant, inhaled nitric oxide, inotropes). Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the role of rescue HFOV in near term and term infants with pulmonary dysfunction before widespread use of this mode of ventilation in such infants.