4.8 Article

High-Frequency Oscillation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

期刊

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 368, 期 9, 页码 806-813

出版社

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1215716

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme [06/04/01]
  2. National Institute for Health Research [06/04/501, 06/04/01] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) require mechanical ventilation to maintain arterial oxygenation, but this treatment may produce secondary lung injury. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) may reduce this secondary damage. METHODS In a multicenter study, we randomly assigned adults requiring mechanical ventilation for ARDS to undergo either HFOV with a Novalung R100 ventilator (Metran) or usual ventilatory care. All the patients had a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen (Pao(2)) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (F-IO2) of 200 mm Hg (26.7 kPa) or less and an expected duration of ventilation of at least 2 days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality 30 days after randomization. RESULTS There was no significant between-group difference in the primary outcome, which occurred in 166 of 398 patients (41.7%) in the HFOV group and 163 of 397 patients (41.1%) in the conventional-ventilation group (P = 0.85 by the chi-square test). After adjustment for study center, sex, score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, and the initial Pao2:F-IO2 ratio, the odds ratio for survival in the conventional-ventilation group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.40; P = 0.87 by logistic regression). CONCLUSIONS The use of HFOV had no significant effect on 30-day mortality in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for ARDS. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; OSCAR Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN10416500.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据