Trial reportCanadian respiratory journal2026
High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation Combined With Inhaled Nitric Oxide for Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn: A Single-Center Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Canadian respiratory journal, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPersistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) may respond incompletely to inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) when poorly recruited lung limits delivery to ventilated alveoli. We evaluated whether high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) combined with iNO improved clinical and physiologic outcomes compared with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) + iNO or HFOV alone.
methodsIn this prospective, single-center, 3-arm, open-label randomized clinical trial, 138 neonates born at 34 weeks of gestation or later with echocardiographically confirmed PPHN and an oxygenation index of 25 or greater were randomized 1:1:1 to HFOV + iNO, CMV + iNO, or HFOV alone. The principal complete-case per-protocol analysis included 126 infants (42 per group) with ascertainable 120-day primary outcomes who completed the assigned strategy without a major protocol deviation. The possible influence of the 12 unavailable primary outcomes was evaluated in post hoc randomized-denominator extreme-case sensitivity analyses. The primary outcome was death or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) within 120 days.
resultsIn the complete-case per-protocol population, death or ECMO occurred in 3 of 42 infants (7.1%) assigned to HFOV + iNO, 11 of 42 (26.2%) assigned to CMV + iNO, and 14 of 42 (33.3%) assigned to HFOV alone (overall p = 0.012). For HFOV + iNO versus CMV + iNO, the risk ratio was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.08-0.91), and the risk difference was -19.0 percentage points (95% CI, -34.5 to -3.6; Holm-adjusted p = 0.038). For HFOV + iNO versus HFOV alone, the risk ratio was 0.21 (95% CI, 0.07-0.69) and the risk difference was -26.2 percentage points (95% CI, -42.4 to -9.9; Holm-adjusted p = 0.011). The mean oxygenation index at 72 h was 7.1 (SD, 2.8), 11.0 (SD, 3.8), and 15.9 (SD, 4.5), respectively (group-by-time interaction p < 0.001). The overall primary comparison remained significant under symmetric extreme-case assignments for the unavailable outcomes but not under the differential worst-case assumption for HFOV + iNO (p = 0.222).
conclusionsIn the observed per-protocol population, HFOV + iNO was associated with fewer deaths or ECMO events and faster improvement in oxygenation and right-ventricular echocardiographic measures than either comparator. Because 12 randomized infants were excluded and the overall comparison was not robust to the differential worst-case missing-outcome assumption, confidence in the apparent treatment effect is limited. These findings are exploratory and hypothesis-generating, do not establish efficacy, and require confirmation in a prospectively registered multicenter trial with complete outcome ascertainment.
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.