MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical use of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

2005· review· en· W2116377044 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth Chan, Thomas E. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHigh-frequency ventilationRespiratory distressVentilation (architecture)Mechanical ventilationMean airway pressureIntensive care medicinePopulationTidal volumeRespiratory minute volumeRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaRespiratory systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is an emerging ventilatory strategy for adults that has been used successfully in the neonatal and pediatric population. This modality utilizes high mean airway pressures to maintain an open lung and low tidal volumes at a high frequency that allow for adequate ventilation while at the same time preventing alveolar overdistension. With the current understanding that excessive lung stretch and inadequate end-expiratory ventilatory volume may be injurious to the lungs, HFOV seems to be the ideal lung-protective ventilatory mode. During the past 8 yrs, there have been increasing numbers of studies describing its use in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. This article aims to review the published studies of HFOV in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome with regard to its safety and efficacy. DATA SOURCE: To assist us with our review, we did a search of MEDLINE (from 1966 to present) and EMBASE (1980 to present) databases to identify adult, clinical, English-language, research articles related to HFOV use. In addition, we reviewed relevant animal and mechanical ventilation studies. We did not perform a formal systematic review. DATA SYNTHESIS: The application of HFOV was mainly reported as a rescue ventilatory mode in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who were thought to have failed conventional ventilation. In these patients, HFOV has consistently been shown to improve oxygenation without obvious increases in complications measured. There was only one randomized, controlled trial comparing HFOV with conventional ventilation. This study showed that there was a nonsignificant trend toward a lower mortality rate in the HFOV group. In addition, HFOV was as effective and safe as conventional ventilation. Although there are limitations, multiple studies have shown that earlier initiation of HFOV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome may also be associated with a lower mortality. CONCLUSIONS: HFOV seems to be safe and effective for adults with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome who have failed conventional ventilation. Further research is needed to determine the ideal patients, timing, and optimal technique with which to provide HFOV. When considering HFOV as an early, lung-protective mode of ventilation, there is still a need to perform an adequately powered, randomized, controlled trial comparing it with the best available form of conventional ventilation. However, we believe that such a trial should wait until we have a better understanding of HFOV in adults.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207