Observational studyPediatric pulmonology2023
Humidity during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation compared to intermittent positive pressure ventilation in extremely preterm neonates: An in vitro and in vivo observational study.
Observational study in Pediatric pulmonology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Temperature and Humidity During Different Neonatal Respiratory Support Modes: An In-Vitro Performance of Four Heated Humidifiers.Pediatric pulmonology · 2025Article
- Humidity during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation compared to intermittent positive pressure ventilation in extremely preterm neonates: An in vitro and in vivo observational study.Pediatric pulmonology · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInappropriate humidification of inspired gas during mechanical ventilation can impair lung development in extremely low birthweight (ELBW) infants. Humidification depends on multiple factors, such as the heater-humidifier device used, type of ventilation, and environmental factors. Few studies have examined inspired gas humidification in these infants, especially during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV). Our objective was to compare humidity during HFOV and intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV), in vitro and in vivo.
methodsIn vitro and in vivo studies used the same ventilator during both HFOV and IPPV. The bench study used a neonatal test lung and two heater-humidifiers with their specific circuits; the in vivo study prospectively included preterm infants born before 28 weeks of gestation.
resultsOn bench testing, mean absolute (AH) and relative (RH) humidity values were significantly lower during HFOV than IPPV (RH = 79.4 ± 8.1% vs. 89.0 ± 6.2%, p < 0.001). Regardless of the ventilatory mode, mean RH significantly differed between the two heater-humidifiers (89.6 ± 6.7% vs 78.7 ± 6.8%, p = 0.003). The in vivo study included 10 neonates (mean ± SD gestational age: 25.7 ± 0.9 weeks and birthweight: 624.4 ± 96.1 g). Mean RH during HFOV was significantly lower than during IPPV (74.6 ± 5.7% vs. 83.0 ± 6.7%, p = 0.004).
conclusionRH was significantly lower during HFOV than IPPV, both in vitro and in vivo. The type of heater-humidifier also influenced humidification. More systematic measurements of humidity of inspired gas, especially during HFOV, should be considered to optimize humidification and consequently lung protection in ELBW infants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.