High frequency oscillation in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): systematic review and meta-analysis
Open Access
- 18 May 2010
- Vol. 340 (may18 2), c2327
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2327
Abstract
Objective To determine clinical and physiological effects of high frequency oscillation compared with conventional ventilation in patients with acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Electronic databases to March 2010, conference proceedings, bibliographies, and primary investigators.Study selection Randomised controlled trials of high frequency oscillation compared with conventional ventilation in adults or children with acute lung injury/ARDS.Data selection Three authors independently extracted data on clinical, physiological, and safety outcomes according to a predefined protocol. We contacted investigators of all included studies to clarify methods and obtain additional data. Analyses used random effects models.Results Eight randomised controlled trials (n=419 patients) were included; almost all patients had ARDS. Methodological quality was good. The ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to inspired fraction of oxygen at 24, 48, and 72 hours was 16-24% higher in patients receiving high frequency oscillation. There were no significant differences in oxygenation index because mean airway pressure rose by 22-33% in patients receiving high frequency oscillation (P≤0.01). In patients randomised to high frequency oscillation, mortality was significantly reduced (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.98, P=0.03; six trials, 365 patients, 160 deaths), and treatment failure (refractory hypoxaemia, hypercapnoea, hypotension, or barotrauma) resulting in discontinuation of assigned therapy was less likely (0.67, 0.46 to 0.99, P=0.04; five trials, 337 patients, 73 events). Other risks were similar. There was substantial heterogeneity between trials for physiological (I2=21-95%) but not clinical (I2=0%) outcomes. Pooled results were based on few events for most clinical outcomes.Conclusion High frequency oscillation might improve survival and is unlikely to cause harm. As ongoing large multicentre trials will not be completed for several years, these data help clinicians who currently use or are considering this technique for patients with ARDS.This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trialThe Lancet, 2009
- Has Mortality from Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Decreased over Time?American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2009
- The ratio of means method as an alternative to mean differences for analyzing continuous outcome variables in meta-analysis: A simulation studyBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2008
- Point:Counterpoint: High-frequency ventilation is/is not the optimal physiological approach to ventilate ARDS patientsJournal of Applied Physiology, 2008
- A protocol for high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in adults: Results from a roundtable discussion*Critical Care Medicine, 2007
- Effect of nitric oxide on oxygenation and mortality in acute lung injury: systematic review and meta-analysisBMJ, 2007
- High frequency oscillatory ventilation in burn patients with the acute respiratory distress syndromeBurns, 2004
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysisStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- Ventilation with Lower Tidal Volumes as Compared with Traditional Tidal Volumes for Acute Lung Injury and the Acute Respiratory Distress SyndromeNew England Journal of Medicine, 2000