Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31181092›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2019

An observational, prospective, multicenter study on rescue high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in neonates failing with conventional ventilation.

Omer Erdeve, Emel Okulu, Gaffari Tunc, Yalcın Celik, Ugur Kayacan, Merih Cetinkaya, Gokhan Buyukkale, Hilal Ozkan, Nilgun Koksal, Mehmet Satar and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Omer ErdeveDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-3193-0812
Emel OkuluDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-1101-3355
Gaffari TuncDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Yalcın CelikDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey.
Ugur KayacanDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Mersin University School of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey.
Merih CetinkayaDepartment of Neonatology, University of Health Sciences, Kanuni Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Gokhan BuyukkaleDepartment of Neonatology, University of Health Sciences, Kanuni Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Hilal OzkanDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Uludag University School of Medicine, Bursa, Turkey.
Nilgun KoksalDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Uludag University School of Medicine, Bursa, Turkey.
Mehmet SatarDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Cukurova University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey.
Mustafa AkcaliDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Cukurova University School of Medicine, Adana, Turkey.
Canan AygunDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Ondokuz Mayıs University School of Medicine, Samsun, Turkey.
Servet OzkirazNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Medicalpark Hospital, Gaziantep, Turkey.
Umut ZubariogluDepartment of Neonatology, University of Health Sciences, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0001-6053-7043
Sezin UnalDepartment of Neonatology, University of Health Sciences, Etlik Zubeyde Hanim Maternity Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-5124-4422
Hatice TurgutDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Inonu University School of Medicine, Malatya, Turkey.
Kurthan MertNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
Tulin GokmenDepartment of Neonatology, University of Health Sciences, Zeynep Kamil Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Barıs AkcanDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Adnan Menderes University School of Medicine, Aydin, Turkey.
Begum AtasayDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Saadet ArsanDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Rescue-HFOV Trial Group
Ankara University · TRSağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi · TRBursa Uludağ Üni̇versi̇tesi̇ · TRCukurova University · TRMersin Üniversitesi · TRAdnan Menderes University · TRInonu University · TRMedical Park Gaziantep Hospital · TROndokuz Mayıs University · TRZeynep Kamil Hospital · TRZübeyde Hanim Maternity Hospital · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo achieve gas exchange goals and mitigate lung injury, infants who fail with conventional ventilation (CV) are generally switched to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV). Although preferred in many neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), research on this type of rescue HFOV has not been reported recently.

methodsAn online registry database for a multicenter, prospective study was set to evaluate factors affecting the response of newborn infants to rescue HFOV treatment. The study population consisted of 372 infants with CV failure after at least 4 hours of treatment in 23 participating NICUs. Patients were grouped according to their final outcome as survived (Group S) or as died or received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (Group D/E). Patients' demographic characteristics and underlying diseases in addition to their ventilator settings, arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis results at 0, 1, 4, and 24 hours, type of device, ventilation duration, and complications were compared between groups.

resultsHFOV as rescue treatment was successful in 58.1% of patients. Demographic and treatment parameters were not different between groups, except that infants in Group D/E had lower birthweight (BW) (1655 ± 1091 vs. 1858 ± 1027 g, p = 0.006), a higher initial FiO2 setting (83% vs. 72%, p < 0.001), and a higher rate of nitric oxide exposure (21.8% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.004) in comparison to infants who survived (Group S). The initial cut-offs for a successful response on ABG were defined as pH >7.065 (OR: 19.74, 95% CI 4.83-80.6, p < 0.001), HCO3 >16.35 mmol/L (OR: 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.1, p = 0.006), and lactate level <3.75 mmol/L (OR: 1.09%95 CI 1.01-1.16, p = 0.006). Rescue HFOV duration was associated with retinopathy of prematurity (p = 0.005) and moderate or severe chronic lung disease (p < 0.001), but not with patent ductus arteriosus or intraventricular hemorrhage, in survivors (p > 0.05).

conclusionRescue HFOV as defined for this population was successful in more than half of the patients with CV failure. Although the response was not associated with gestational age, underlying disease, device used, or initial MV settings, it seemed to be more effective in patients with higher BW and those not requiring nitric oxide. Initial pH, HCO3, and lactate levels on ABG may be used as predictors of a response to rescue HFOV.

Indexed as

Birth WeightExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationFemaleGestational AgeHigh-Frequency VentilationHumansInfant, NewbornIntensive Care Units, NeonatalIntermittent Positive-Pressure VentilationLung InjuryMaleProspective StudiesRespirationRespiration, ArtificialRespiratory Distress Syndrome, NewbornRespiratory Insufficiency

Identifiers

PMID31181092
PMCPMC6557483
OpenAlexW2951611707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.