Conventional mechanical ventilation versus high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in congenital diaphragmatic hernia of neonates: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Neonates with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) present with respiratory distress and circulatory insufficiency, requiring immediate intubation and mechanical ventilation. Studies in the literature present contradictory results regarding the optimal ventilation mode for neonates with congenital diaphragmatic hernia. We present a systematic review of the selected literature regarding high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) compared to conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Methodology: PubMed, SCOPUS, EBSCOhost, and ProQuest databases were used to identify literature regarding HFOV compared to CMV in a CDH. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for randomized clinical trials. Results: Four studies were identified and considered eligible for the study. One study was a randomized clinical trial, and the other three cohort studies. Patients in the high-frequency oscillatory (HFO) group presented with a higher length of ventilation and hospital stay. There was a lack of evidence regarding any significant difference in the mortality rate. Conclusion: We cannot make an evidence-based recommendation regarding the superiority of either CMV or HFOV as the optimal ventilation method in neonates with CDH. However, almost all studies observed a lengthened period of ventilation and time required before surgical repair in the HFOV group. Abbreviations: CDH: congenital diaphragmatic hernia; CLD: chronic lung disease; CMV: conventional mechanical ventilation; GER: gastroesophageal reflux; HFOV: high-frequency oscillatory ventilation; NOS: Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; RDS: respiratory distress syndrome Key words: Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia; Conventional Mechanical Ventilation; High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation Citation: Kapuangan C, Ramlan AAW, Zahra R, Rahendra, Soenarto RF, Hanawi E. Conventional mechanical ventilation versus high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in congenital diaphragmatic hernia of neonates: a systematic review. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2022;26(6):000−000 ; DOI: 10.35975/apic.v26i6.2048
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".