4.7 Article

Lung recruitment using oxygenation during open lung high-frequency ventilation in preterm infants

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200603-351OC

关键词

air leaks; chronic lung disease; respiratory distress syndrome; surfactant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: Changes in oxygenation are often used to guide the recruitment procedure during open lung high-frequency ventilation in preterm infants. However, data on the feasibility and safety of this approach in daily clinical practice are limited. Objective: To prospectively collect data on ventilator settings, gas exchange, and circulatory parameters before and after surfactant therapy during open lung high-frequency ventilation. Methods: In 103 preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome, the opening, closing, and optimal pressures were determined during high-frequency ventilation by increasing and decreasing stepwise the continuous distending pressure, defining optimal recruitment as adequate oxygenation using a fraction of inspired oxygen not exceeding 0.25. This procedure was repeated after each surfactant treatment. Measurements and Main Results: The mean presurfactant opening and optimal continuous distending pressures were, respectively, 20.5 +/- 4.3 and 14.0 +/- 4.0 cm H2O, with a fraction of inspired oxygen of 0.24 +/- 0.04. Surfactant treatment enabled a reduction in the mean optimal pressure of almost 6 cm H2O without compromising oxygenation. Blood pressure and heart rate remained stable and no air leaks were observed during the recruitment procedures. The mortality rate and the incidence of severe intracranial hemorrhage or periventricular leukomalacia and chronic lung disease at 36 wk were comparable to previously reported data. Conclusion: Open lung high-frequency ventilation using oxygenation to guide the recruitment process is feasible and safe in preterm infants and enables a reduction of the fraction of inspired oxygen below 0.25 in the majority of preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome.

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

4.7
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