help button home button
AJRCCM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Online Supplement
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bollen, C. W.
Right arrow Articles by van Vught, A. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bollen, C. W.
Right arrow Articles by van Vught, A. J.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Vol 168. pp. 1150-1155, (2003)
© 2003 American Thoracic Society

Critical Care Perspective

Cumulative Metaanalysis of High-frequency Versus Conventional Ventilation in Premature Neonates

Casper W. Bollen, Cuno S. P. M. Uiterwaal and Adrianus J. van Vught

Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, and Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Adrianus J. van Vught, M.D., Ph.D., Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Room KG 01.319.0, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, POB 85090, 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: a.vanvught{at}wkz.azu.nl

Mechanical ventilation can induce lung injury, particularly in premature and diseased lungs. There is increasing evidence that high peak inspiratory pressures and repetitive end-expiratory collapse are major determinants of lung injury (1). This injury may extend to other organ systems, leading to multiorgan failure (2–4). Ventilatory strategies that limit high inflation pressures and prevent end-expiratory collapse are designated as lung protective mechanical ventilation (5).

High-frequency ventilation is a method of ventilation in which alveolar gas exchange is maintained by pressure swings initiating small displacements of ventilatory gases, considerably smaller than conventional tidal volumes, at frequencies generally from 5–20 Hz superimposed on a continuous positive pressure. High-frequency ventilation allows higher end-expiratory pressures with lower peak inspiratory pressures and higher mean airway pressures and is therefore proposed as currently the most optimal form of lung protective ventilation (6, 7).

In animal experiments, high-frequency ventilation has been shown to prevent ventilator-induced lung injury (8–10). The majority of clinical trials so far have been performed in neonates, but results are equivocal. The two most recent large randomized controlled trials failed to demonstrate a significant advantage of high-frequency ventilation over conventional mechanical ventilation or showed only a small benefit (11, 12). The last metaanalysis of the pooled data in neonates showed no reduction in either mortality or oxygen dependency at Day 28–30 after birth but a small reduction in the risk of chronic lung disease at 36- to 37-week postgestational age in patients treated with high-frequency ventilation with optimized lung volume in comparison with conventional mechanical ventilation (13).

The conventional mechanical ventilation strategies for treating respiratory failure have evolved since the first published clinical trial in 1987 comparing high-frequency ventilation with conventional mechanical ventilation due to the introduction of surfactant replacement therapy and the concept of lung protective ventilation (14). Therefore, early results cannot be easily compared with later studies, a limitation that prior metaanalyses accounted for only partially or not at all (13, 15–17).

We reviewed the published comparative data on high-frequency ventilation and conventional mechanical ventilation in neonates and performed an updated metaanalysis, including the two most recent and largest randomized clinical trials (11, 12). We stratified trials by different high-frequency ventilators and by different ventilatory strategies. In addition, we performed a cumulative metaanalysis within relevant strata, which allowed us to examine the development of the available evidence over time and to assess the influence of the introduction of surfactant replacement therapy and of lung protective ventilation.

METHODS

Search Strategy and Data Collection
The Embase, Medline, and Current Contents databases were searched to identify all systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials of treatment with high-frequency ventilation compared with conventional mechanical ventilation. Clinical trials had to meet criteria that were previously adopted by Bhuta and Henderson-Smart (18). A more detailed description of the search strategy can be found in the online supplement.

Data on the following outcomes were extracted: mortality at 28 to 30 days of age; bronchopulmonary dysplasia, defined as oxygen dependency at the age of 28 to 30 days with radiologic evidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia; chronic lung disease, defined as oxygen dependency at the postconceptional age of 36 weeks; intraventricular hemorrhage; and periventricular leukomalacia.

A high lung volume strategy with high-frequency ventilation was assumed if two or more of the following items were explicitly stated in the methods: initial use of a higher mean airway pressure than on conventional mechanical ventilation, initial lowering of inspired oxygen before reducing mean airway pressure, and use of alveolar recruitment maneuvers. A lung protective strategy in the conventional mechanical ventilation group was based on specifying the PCO2 goal, allowing permissive hypercapnia, and a high initial ventilatory rate, targeted at reducing tidal volume as previously suggested by Thome and Carlo (16).

Data Analysis and Statistical Methods
A number of hypotheses were proposed in advance to explain differences between study outcomes. First, differences could be attributed to the type of ventilator being used. We therefore stratified studies by the following subgroups: the SensorMedics ventilator (SensorMedics, Bilthoven, the Netherlands), other high-frequency oscillatory ventilators, high-frequency jet ventilators, and high-frequency flow interruption ventilators. Another possible explanation of different treatment effects could be the use of surfactant. Subgroups were made of studies with and studies without the concomitant use of surfactant. Finally, recent improvements in ventilation strategies could affect outcome. We therefore defined the following subgroups: no high lung volume strategy in high-frequency ventilation and no lung protective strategy in conventional mechanical ventilation, high lung volume strategy in high-frequency ventilation and no lung protective strategy in conventional mechanical ventilation, high lung volume strategy in high-frequency ventilation, and lung protective strategy in conventional mechanical ventilation.

A cumulative metaanalysis was performed by pooling data again each time a new study was published (19). To assess changes in relative treatment effects and to identify possible sources of heterogeneity, a graph was constructed using pooled estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals as a function of the cumulative number of patients included in the analysis in a chronologic order. The particular purpose of this graph was to show the ratio of the cumulative treatment effect to the previous cumulative treatment effect. This so-called recursive cumulative metaanalysis was created to identify graphically sources of heterogeneity emerging at specific points in time (20). Furthermore, heterogeneity was statistically evaluated using visual examination of the extent of overlapping confidence intervals and Cochrane's Q test (21, 22). Different treatment effects were assumed in case of graphical evidence for heterogeneity and a significant test for heterogeneity (p < 0.10). Differences between subgroups were statistically evaluated by a chi-square test. Metaanalyses were performed in different subgroups to eliminate heterogeneity. Cumulative metaanalyses were visualized again to assess remaining heterogeneity or changes in treatment effects. A random effects model was used to calculate pooled treatment effects. Publication bias was assessed by visual appraisal of funnel plots and by performing a rank test.

RESULTS

We identified five systematic reviews (13, 15, 16, 18, 23). Using the reference lists of these systematic reviews, 14 original articles were selected. Our literature search yielded no additional references. Thus, 14 articles were available for our analyses that represented a total of 3,260 randomized patients (11, 12, 24–35). The main features of these articles are summarized in the online supplement in Table E1.

There was significant heterogeneity between different studies for chronic lung disease (p = 0.05) and periventricular leukomalacia (p = 0.08) (Table E2 in the online supplement). This corresponded with significant differences between subgroups of surfactant (p = 0.02 for chronic lung disease and p = 0.07 for periventricular leukomalacia) and ventilatory strategy (p < 0.01 for chronic lung disease and p = 0.02 for periventricular leukomalacia) but not between ventilator subgroups. Significant differences between subgroups of ventilatory strategy were also detected for death or chronic lung disease (p < 0.01), intraventricular hemorrhage all grades (p = 0.03), and intraventricular hemorrhage grades 3 and 4 (p = 0.05) (Table E2).

Graphical presentation of the cumulative relative risk of chronic lung disease showed a distinctive shape (Figure 1) . There was a convergence of the 95% confidence interval with a regression of the estimate to the line of no effect. The recursive cumulative metaanalysis is depicted by the dotted line in Figure 1. A ratio above one implied overestimation of the treatment (high-frequency ventilation) effect. The first peak thus visualized corresponded with the first trial in which surfactant was used to treat respiratory distress syndrome and chronic lung disease was reported as an outcome (27). The second peak coincided with the start of protective lung ventilation in conventional mechanical ventilation (29). Thus, the use of surfactant and lung protective strategy in conventional mechanical ventilation was graphically indicated to be two major sources of study heterogeneity.



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Cumulative and recursive metaanalysis of chronic lung disease indicating two important sources of heterogeneity. CMV = conventional mechanical ventilation; HFV = high-frequency ventilation; X-axis = cumulative number of patients included in trials; Y-axis = relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Diamonds = cumulative estimates of RR; gray lines = 95% confidence intervals; dotted line = ratio of cumulative RR estimate to prior cumulative RR estimate. A ratio of more than one indicates an overestimation of the treatment (HFV) effect. A ratio of less than one indicates an underestimation of the treatment (HFV) effect. Each diamond represents an addition of a study in the cumulative metaanalysis (11, 12, 25, 27–29, 31–34).

 
Table 1 describes the metaanalyses stratified by ventilatory strategy and ventilator subgroups with the remaining heterogeneity. In none of the ventilatory strategy subgroups was there a difference in mortality when high-frequency ventilation was compared with conventional mechanical ventilation. Respiratory outcomes were better in the ventilation strategy subgroup in which high-frequency ventilation with high lung volume strategy was compared with conventional mechanical ventilation without lung protective strategy. However, high-frequency ventilation without high lung volume strategy lost the ability to prevent lung damage. Furthermore, high-frequency ventilation without high lung volume strategy resulted in an elevated risk of intraventricular hemorrhage, intraventricular hemorrhage grades 3 and 4, and periventricular leukomalacia. The beneficial effects on respiratory outcome also disappeared when high-frequency ventilation with high lung volume strategy was compared with conventional mechanical ventilation with lung protective strategy. Remaining significant heterogeneity existed only for intraventricular hemorrhage grades 3 and 4 in the subgroup of high-frequency ventilation with high lung volume strategy and conventional mechanical ventilation with lung protective strategy.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Metaanalyses in subgroups

 
Stratification by the type of ventilator being used had less impact on treatment results and did not eliminate heterogeneity for chronic lung disease, intraventricular hemorrhage, and periventricular leukomalacia (Table 1). Significantly better respiratory outcomes were reported only in the SensorMedics subgroup. In this subgroup, the relative risk of chronic lung disease was 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.36–0.93). However, there was significant heterogeneity, and visual examination of the cumulative metaanalysis revealed a progressive trend of the estimate of the relative risk to the line of no effect. The relative risk of death or chronic lung disease was not statistically different when high-frequency ventilation with the SensorMedics was compared with conventional mechanical ventilation (relative risk = 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.43–1.04). There was still unexplained significant heterogeneity for intraventricular hemorrhage all grades and grades 3 and 4 in the high-frequency oscillatory ventilation subgroup (p = 0.06 and p = 0.02, respectively), and there was significant heterogeneity for periventricular leukomalacia in the high-frequency jet and high-frequency flow interruption ventilator subgroup (p = 0.02).

Figure 2 is a graphical presentation of our main cumulative analysis of chronic lung disease, which is in subgroups of ventilatory strategy. The cumulative estimate of the relative risk of chronic lung disease in high-frequency ventilation with high lung volume strategy compared with conventional mechanical ventilation without a lung protective strategy did not change any further during the last three trials of the total of four studies and remained significant. The cumulative metaanalyses of chronic lung disease in the subgroup with high-frequency ventilation without high lung volume strategy and the subgroup of high-frequency ventilation with high lung volume strategy but also lung protective strategy in conventional mechanical ventilation did not show any tendency to migrate from the line of no effect. Cumulative metaanalysis of the relative risk for intraventricular hemorrhage grades 3 and 4 in the subgroup of high-frequency ventilation without a high lung volume strategy showed a harmful effect compared with conventional mechanical ventilation (Figure 3) . When a high lung volume strategy was being used, this effect disappeared. Thus, within comparisons of optimized high-frequency ventilation and optimized conventional mechanical ventilation, including the latest large trials, there was no beneficial effect of either treatment, nor was there an indication of significant remaining heterogeneity or change in treatment effect.



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Cumulative metaanalyses of chronic lung disease in ventilatory strategy subgroups. HLVS = high lung volume strategy; LPVS = lung protective ventilatory strategy. Within each of the three subgroups of studies, each later estimate is a pooled estimate of results of all previous studies.

 


View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Cumulative metaanalyses of intraventricular hemorrhage in ventilatory strategy subgroups. Within each of the three subgroups of studies, each later estimate is a pooled estimate of results of all previous studies.

 
DISCUSSION

When optimized high-frequency ventilation with high lung volume strategy was compared with optimized conventional mechanical ventilation with lung protective strategy, there was no reduction in chronic lung disease. As in previous metaanalyses on high-frequency ventilation versus conventional mechanical ventilation in neonates, we also did not find differences in mortality (13, 15, 16, 18, 23). Cumulative metaanalysis of the data allowed us to analyze the development of the evidence and to investigate how consecutive trials contributed to the estimation of the treatment effects (19).

There is a growing understanding that clinical evidence is a dynamic process, not a static estimation of a single treatment effect at a single time point (36). In this respect, cumulative metaanalysis should be distinguished from an updating of an existing metaanalysis. In a cumulative metaanalysis, the accumulating results allow assessment of changes in patient and treatment characteristics over time. Although there was clearly significant heterogeneity, precluding pooling of estimates, a cumulative metaanalysis of chronic lung disease, including all studies, was performed exclusively to identify graphically such effects at specific points in time. As such, this analysis was not intended to calculate a single pooled treatment effect.

A first important source of heterogeneity might be small trial bias (publication bias), which results in systematic differences in effect size estimates derived from small versus large trials (37). The other possible explanation is the improvement of conventional ventilation over time. One of the major advances in neonatal respiratory care is the introduction of surfactant (38). Numerous clinical studies have confirmed the beneficial effect of surfactant administration on outcome of premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome (39). Our results indicate that introduction of surfactant therapy is reflected in a considerable change in relative treatment effects. Another advance in ventilatory care is the application of lower tidal volumes and higher positive end-expiratory pressure levels, designated as lung protective ventilation (40). A ventilatory strategy to maintain lung volume (higher mean airway pressures) with low tidal volumes has the potential for better alveolar recruitment compared with a low volume strategy with higher tidal volumes and thus would result in better outcome in terms of chronic lung disease. Although in adult respiratory care there is increasing evidence of the beneficial effect on mortality and morbidity of lung protective ventilation (40), a large body of controversy remains (41–44). In neonates, only few studies have addressed this topic (45, 46). We speculate that the introduction of lung protective ventilation also reflected an important change of relative treatment effects, albeit smaller than with the introduction of surfactant.

It is now generally believed that high-frequency ventilation is most beneficial if the lungs are optimally recruited (6, 10, 47, 48). However, the evidence for this comes mainly from animal experiments (10, 48). There are no clinical studies comparing high-frequency ventilation with high lung volume strategy and high-frequency ventilation without high lung volume strategy. We show that the best effects of high-frequency ventilation on chronic lung disease were reported in studies in which high lung volume strategy was part of the high-frequency ventilation protocol but in which the conventional mechanical ventilation protocol did not meet the criteria for lung protective ventilation (25, 27, 28, 31). Studies not mentioning high lung volume strategy and lung protective ventilation as part of their protocol failed to show differences in effect of high-frequency ventilation on chronic lung disease (32, 34). Instead, these studies demonstrated an increased incidence of intraventricular hemorrhage. When lung protective conventional mechanical ventilation was compared with high-frequency ventilation with high lung volume strategy, there were no differences in either chronic lung disease or intraventricular hemorrhage (11, 12, 29, 33).

In previous reports, it has been suggested that particularly premature neonates with a higher baseline risk of chronic lung disease would benefit more from high-frequency ventilation (29, 33). It has also been suggested that using high-frequency ventilation as the primary mode of ventilation immediately after birth would increase its effectiveness (28, 49). In consecutive studies, patients had lower birth weights and were more premature. In consequence, this would imply a higher risk of chronic lung disease. Furthermore, institution of high-frequency ventilation after birth was earlier in the more recent trials. However, our cumulative analysis of chronic lung disease showed that this did not result in a larger benefit of high-frequency ventilation over conventional mechanical ventilation over time, as would have been expected.

A limitation of our analysis is the varying definitions of high lung volume strategy in the high-frequency ventilation group and of lung protective strategy for conventional mechanical ventilation used in the original studies. In the definition of high lung volume strategy, a higher mean airway pressure was limited to initial use, and use of recruitment maneuvers did not necessarily mean that an open lung strategy was used the entire study period. Furthermore, the definition of lung protective ventilatory strategy did not include tidal volumes standardized to body weight or levels of positive end-expiratory pressure being applied. The actual implementation of these strategies could not be accounted for either in our analysis.

In the most recent metaanalysis published by the Cochrane Library, the use of a high lung volume strategy and treatment with surfactant was taken into account as well (13). However, this did not eliminate existing heterogeneity between trials. It was concluded that high-frequency oscillatory ventilation caused a modest reduction in chronic lung disease. In our analyses, we did not only identify the use of surfactant as a source of heterogeneity but also the application of a lung protective strategy in the conventional mechanical ventilation group. The most significant differences between subgroups were found between trials using different ventilation strategies, not only in the high-frequency ventilation group but also in the conventional mechanical ventilation group. By stratifying trials by ventilation strategies, we were able to minimize heterogeneity. We therefore explain heterogeneity between trials mainly by changes in the conventional treatment of respiratory distress in premature neonates over time. Unlike the Cochrane metaanalysis, we did not find differences in chronic lung disease between optimized high-frequency ventilation and optimized conventional mechanical ventilation. We suggest that future investigations should be directed toward identifying the specific pulmonary conditions in which optimized high-frequency ventilation does have benefits compared with optimized conventional mechanical ventilation (50).

Cumulative metaanalysis and subsequent stratification are valuable methods to summarize and interpret the effects of changes in patient characteristics and treatments over time. These methods enabled us to show that use of surfactant and the emergence of lung protective ventilation strategies in conventional mechanical ventilation moderates the relative beneficial effect on chronic lung disease of high-frequency ventilation.

FOOTNOTES

This article has an online supplement, which is accessible from this issue's table of contents online at www.atsjournals.org

Conflict of Interest Statement: C.W.B. has no declared conflict of interest; C.S.P.M.U. has no declared conflict of interest; A.J.v.V. has no declared conflict of interest.

Received in original form June 2, 2003; accepted in final form August 29, 2003

REFERENCES

  1. Dreyfuss D, Saumon G. Ventilator-induced lung injury: lessons from experimental studies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;157:294–323.
  2. Chiumello D, Pristine G, Slutsky AS. Mechanical ventilation affects local and systemic cytokines in an animal model of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;160:109–116.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Dreyfuss D, Saumon G. From ventilator-induced lung injury to multiple organ dysfunction? Intensive Care Med 1998;24:102–104.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Slutsky AS, Tremblay LN. Multiple system organ failure: is mechanical ventilation a contributing factor? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;157:1721–1725.
  5. Hudson LD. Protective ventilation for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 1998;338:385–387.[Free Full Text]
  6. Froese AB. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation for adult respiratory distress syndrome: let's get it right this time! Crit Care Med 1997;25:906–908.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Froese AB. The incremental application of lung-protective high-frequency oscillatory ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:786–787.[Free Full Text]
  8. McCulloch PR, Forkert PG, Froese AB. Lung volume maintenance prevents lung injury during high frequency oscillatory ventilation in surfactant-deficient rabbits. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988;137:1185–1192.[Medline]
  9. Meredith KS, deLemos RA, Coalson JJ, King RJ, Gerstmann DR, Kumar R, Kuehl TJ, Winter DC, Taylor A, Clark RH, et al. Role of lung injury in the pathogenesis of hyaline membrane disease in premature baboons. J Appl Physiol 1989;66:2150–2158.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Froese AB, McCulloch PR, Sugiura M, Vaclavik S, Possmayer F, Moller F. Optimizing alveolar expansion prolongs the effectiveness of exogenous surfactant therapy in the adult rabbit. Am Rev Respir Dis 1993;148:569–577.[Medline]
  11. Johnson AH, Peacock JL, Greenough A, Marlow N, Limb ES, Marston L, Calvert SA. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation for the prevention of chronic lung disease of prematurity. N Engl J Med 2002;347:633–642.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Courtney SE, Durand DJ, Asselin JM, Hudak ML, Aschner JL, Shoemaker CT. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional mechanical ventilation for very-low-birth-weight infants. N Engl J Med 2002;347:643–652.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Henderson-Smart DJ, Bhuta T, Cools F, Offringa M. Elective high frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for acute pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;CD000104.
  14. Marraro GA. Innovative practices of ventilatory support with pediatric patients. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2003;4:8–20.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Bhuta T, Henderson-Smart DJ. Elective high frequency jet ventilation versus conventional ventilation for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;CD000328.
  16. Thome UH, Carlo WA. High-frequency ventilation in neonates. Am J Perinatol 2000;17:1–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Henderson-Smart DJ, Bhuta T, Cools F, Offringa M. Elective high frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for acute pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;CD000104.
  18. Bhuta T, Henderson-Smart DJ. Elective high-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation in preterm infants with pulmonary dysfunction: systematic review and meta-analyses. Pediatrics 1997;100:E6.
  19. Lau J, Schmid CH, Chalmers TC. Cumulative metaanalysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:45–57.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Ioannidis JP, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Lau J. Recursive cumulative meta-analysis: a diagnostic for the evolution of total randomized evidence from group and individual patient data. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:281–291.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Takkouche B, Cadarso-Suarez C, Spiegelman D. Evaluation of old and new tests of heterogeneity in epidemiologic meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150:206–215.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Hardy RJ, Thompson SG. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med 1998;17:841–856.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Clark RH, Dykes FD, Bachman TE, Ashurst JT. Intraventricular hemorrhage and high-frequency ventilation: a meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials. Pediatrics 1996;98:1058–1061.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Carlo WA, Siner B, Chatburn RL, Robertson S, Martin RJ. Early randomized intervention with high-frequency jet ventilation in respiratory distress syndrome. J Pediatr 1990;117:765–770.[Medline]
  25. Clark RH, Gerstmann DR, Null DM Jr, deLemos RA. Prospective randomized comparison of high-frequency oscillatory and conventional ventilation in respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatrics 1992;89:5–12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Froese AB, Butler PO, Fletcher WA, Byford LJ. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation in premature infants with respiratory failure: a preliminary report. Anesth Analg 1987;66:814–824.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Gerstmann DR, Minton SD, Stoddard RA, Meredith KS, Monaco F, Bertrand JM, Battisti O, Langhendries JP, Francois A, Clark RH. The Provo multicenter early high-frequency oscillatory ventilation trial: improved pulmonary and clinical outcome in respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatrics 1996;98:1044–1057.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Keszler M, Modanlou HD, Brudno DS, Clark FI, Cohen RS, Ryan RM, Kaneta MK, Davis JM. Multicenter controlled clinical trial of high-frequency jet ventilation in preterm infants with uncomplicated respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatrics 1997;100:593–599.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Moriette G, Paris-Llado J, Walti H, Escande B, Magny JF, Cambonie G, Thiriez G, Cantagrel S, Lacaze-Masmonteil T, Storme L, et al. Prospective randomized multicenter comparison of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and conventional ventilation in preterm infants of less than 30 weeks with respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatrics 2001;107:363–372.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Ogawa Y, Miyasaka K, Kawano T, Imura S, Inukai K, Okuyama K, Oguchi K, Togari H, Nishida H, Mishina J. A multicenter randomized trial of high frequency oscillatory ventilation as compared to conventional mechanical ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory failure. Early Hum Dev 1993;32:1–10.[CrossRef][Medline]
  31. Plavka R, Kopecky P, Sebron V, Svihovec P, Zlatohlavkova B, Janus V. A prospective randomized comparison of conventional mechanical ventilation and very early high frequency oscillatory ventilation in extremely premature newborns with respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med 1999;25:68–75.[CrossRef][Medline]
  32. Rettwitz-Volk W, Veldman A, Roth B, Vierzig A, Kachel W, Varnholt V, Schlosser R, von Loewenich V. A prospective, randomized, multi-center trial of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation compared to conventional ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome receiving surfactant. J Pediatr 1998;132:249–254.[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Thome U, Kossel H, Lipowsky G, Porz F, Furste HO, Genzel-Boroviczeny O, Troger J, Oppermann HC, Hogel J, Pohlandt F. Randomized comparison of high-frequency ventilation with high-rate intermittent positive pressure ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory failure. J Pediatr 1999;135:39–46.[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Wiswell TE, Graziani LJ, Kornhauser MS, Cullen J, Merton DA, McKee L, Spitzer AR. High-frequency jet ventilation in the early management of respiratory distress syndrome is associated with a greater risk for adverse outcomes. Pediatrics 1996;98:1035–1043.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation compared to conventional mechanical ventilation in the treatment of respiratory failure in preterm infants: the HIFI Study Group. N Engl J Med 1989;320:88–93.[Abstract]
  36. Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1992;327:248–254.[Abstract]
  37. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–634.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Fujiwara T, Maeta H, Chida S, Morita T, Watabe Y, Abe T. Artificial surfactant therapy in hyaline-membrane disease. Lancet 1980;1:55–59.[Medline]
  39. Suresh GK, Soll RF. Current surfactant use in premature infants. Clin Perinatol 2001;28:671–694.[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Amato MB, Barbas CS, Medeiros DM, Magaldi RB, Schettino GP, Lorenzi-Filho G, Kairalla RA, Deheinzelin D, Munoz C, Oliveira R, et al. Effect of a protective-ventilation strategy on mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 1998;338:347–354.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Stewart TE. Controversies around lung protective mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:1421–1422.[Free Full Text]
  42. Eisner MD, Thompson BT, Schoenfeld D, Anzueto A, Matthay MA. Airway pressures and early barotrauma in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165:978–982.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Hubmayr RD. Perspective on lung injury and recruitment: a skeptical look at the opening and collapse story. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;165:1647–1653.[Free Full Text]
  44. Eichacker PQ, Gerstenberger EP, Banks SM, Cui X, Natanson C. Metaanalysis of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome trials testing low tidal volumes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:1510–1514.[Free Full Text]
  45. Carlo WA, Stark AR, Wright LL, Tyson JE, Papile LA, Shankaran S, Donovan EF, Oh W, Bauer CR, Saha S, et al. Minimal ventilation to prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia in extremely-low-birth-weight infants. J Pediatr 2002;141:370–374.[CrossRef][Medline]
  46. Mariani G, Cifuentes J, Carlo WA. Randomized trial of permissive hypercapnia in preterm infants. Pediatrics 1999;104:1082–1088.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Clark RH, Slutsky AS, Gerstmann DR. Lung protective strategies of ventilation in the neonate: what are they? Pediatrics 2000;105:112–114.[Free Full Text]
  48. McCulloch PR, Forkert PG, Froese AB. Lung volume maintenance prevents lung injury during high frequency oscillatory ventilation in surfactant-deficient rabbits. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988;137:1185–1192.
  49. Stark AR. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation to prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia: are we there yet? N Engl J Med 2002;347:682–684.[Free Full Text]
  50. Bhuta T, Henderson-Smart DJ. Rescue high frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;CD000438.



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
Rebuttal from Dr. Kacmarek
J Appl Physiol, April 1, 2008; 104(4): 1234 - 1235.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
R. M. Muellenbach, C. Wunder, J. Brederlau, J. Villar, A. T. Rotta, S. Maruvada, G. Vento, M. Tana, C. Tirone, V. Vendettuoli, et al.
High-frequency ventilation is/is not the optimal physiological approach to ventilate ARDS patients.
J Appl Physiol, April 1, 2008; 104(4): 1236 - 1237.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
N. D. Ferguson and A. S. Slutsky
Point:Counterpoint: High-frequency ventilation is/is not the optimal physiological approach to ventilate ARDS patients
J Appl Physiol, April 1, 2008; 104(4): 1230 - 1231.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
S. Polinder, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, N.S. Macklon, J.D.F. Habbema, B.J.C.M. Fauser, and M.J.C. Eijkemans
Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomized comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint
Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2008; 23(2): 316 - 323.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NeoReviewsHome page
A. H. Jobe
The New BPD
NeoReviews, October 1, 2006; 7(10): e531 - e545.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
A. De Jaegere, M. B. van Veenendaal, A. Michiels, and A. H. van Kaam
Lung Recruitment Using Oxygenation during Open Lung High-Frequency Ventilation in Preterm Infants
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., September 15, 2006; 174(6): 639 - 645.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NeoReviewsHome page
M. Keszler
High-frequency Ventilation: Evidence-based Practice and Specific Clinical Indications
NeoReviews, May 1, 2006; 7(5): e234 - e249.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed.Home page
C W Bollen, C S P M Uiterwaal, and A J van Vught
Pooling of trials is not appropriate in the case of heterogeneity.
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., May 1, 2006; 91(3): F233 - F234.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
D. G. Tingay, J. F. Mills, C. J. Morley, A. Pellicano, and P. A. Dargaville
The Deflation Limb of the Pressure-Volume Relationship in Infants during High-Frequency Ventilation
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., February 15, 2006; 173(4): 414 - 420.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M.J.C. Eijkemans, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, C. de Klerk, J.D.F. Habbema, and B.C.J.M. Fauser
Comparison of different treatment strategies in IVF with cumulative live birth over a given period of time as the primary end-point: methodological considerations on a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial
Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2006; 21(2): 344 - 351.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed.Home page
U H Thome, W A Carlo, and F Pohlandt
Ventilation strategies and outcome in randomised trials of high frequency ventilation
Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., November 1, 2005; 90(6): F466 - F473.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
W. Hofhuis, J. C. de Jongste, P. J. F. M. Merkus, C. W. Bollen, C. S. P. M. Uiterwaal, and A. J. van Vught
High-Frequency Ventilation in Premature Neonates
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., August 15, 2004; 170(4): 466 - 467.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Evid. Based Nurs.Home page
Other articles noted: 14 Nov 2003 to 30 Jan 2004
Evid. Based Nurs., April 1, 2004; 7(2): e2 - e2.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
M. J. Tobin
Critical Care Medicine in AJRCCM 2003
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., January 15, 2004; 169(2): 239 - 253.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
M. J. Tobin
Pediatrics, Surfactant, and Cystic Fibrosis in AJRCCM 2003
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., January 15, 2004; 169(2): 277 - 287.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Online Supplement
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bollen, C. W.
Right arrow Articles by van Vught, A. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bollen, C. W.
Right arrow Articles by van Vught, A. J.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol.
Copyright © 2003 American Thoracic Society