ArticleThe Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society2019
High-frequency oscillatory ventilation in a tertiary paediatric intensive care unit in an academic hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Article in The Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- How do we use high-frequency oscillation: Primary ventilation, rescue therapy or switch directly to early extracorporeal membrane oxygenation?The Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) remains an option for the management of critically ill children when conventional mechanical ventilation fails. However, its use is not widespread, and there is wide variability reported with respect to how it is used. Objectives: To describe the frequency, indications, settings and outcomes of HFOV use among paediatric patients with a primary respiratory disorder admitted to a tertiary paediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Methods: The study was a 2-year, single-centre, retrospective chart review. Results: Thirty-four (32.7%) patients were managed with HFOV in the PICU during the study period. Thirty-three of the 34 patients had paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome. Indications for HFOV were inadequate oxygenation in 17 patients (50%), and refractory respiratory acidosis in 15 patients (44.1%) (2 patients did not fit into either category). Approaches to the setting of HFOV varied considerably, particularly with respect to initial pressure around the airways. HFOV was effective at improving both oxygenation, with a median (interquartile range (IQR)) decrease in oxygenation index of 6.34 (5.0 - 9.5), and ventilation with a the median decrease in PaCO Conclusion: HFOV remains an effective rescue ventilatory strategy, which resulted in rapid and sustained improvement in gas exchange in patients with severe hypoxaemia and/or severe respiratory acidosis, particularly in the absence of extracorporeal support. However, the variability in practice and the adverse effects described highlight the need for future high-quality randomised controlled trials to allow for development of meaningful guidelines to optimise HFOV use. Contributions of the study: This study describes the use and outcomes of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) in a South African paediatric intensive care unit, thus addressing a local knowledge gap and providing evidence of the continued efficacy of HFOV for severe hypoxaemia and refractory respiratory acidosis in settings without access to extracorporeal technologies.
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.