Comparison of prone positioning and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults: a randomized, controlled trial. Plasma soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1) in pediatric ARDS during high frequency oscillatory ventilation: a predictor of mortality. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation following prone positioning prevents a further impairment in oxygenation. High frequency oscillatory ventilation compared with conventional mechanical ventilation in adult respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN24242669]. Prospective, randomized comparison of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and conventional mechanical ventilation in pediatric respiratory failure.
Both prone position and high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) have the potential to facilitate lung recruitment, and their combined use could thus be synergetic on gas exchange. Keeping the lung open could also potentially be lung protective. The aim of this study was to compare physiologic and proinflammatory effects of HFOV, prone positioning, or their combination in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
                : Prospective, comparative randomized study.
                A medical intensive care unit.
                Thirty-nine ARDS patients with a Pao2/Fio2 ratio <150 mm Hg at positive end-expiratory pressure > or =5 cm H2O.
                After 12 hrs on conventional lung-protective mechanical ventilation (tidal volume 6 mL/kg of ideal body weight, plateau pressure not exceeding the upper inflection point, and a maximum of 35 cm H2O; supine-CV), 39 patients were randomized to receive one of the following 12-hr periods: conventional lung-protective mechanical ventilation in prone position (prone-CV), HFOV in supine position (supine-HFOV), or HFOV in prone position (prone-HFOV).
                Prone-CV (from 138 +/- 58 mm Hg to 217 +/- 110 mm Hg, p < .0001) and prone-HFOV (from 126 +/- 40 mm Hg to 227 +/- 64 mm Hg, p < 0.0001) improved the Pao2/Fio2 ratio whereas supine-HFOV did not alter the Pao2/Fio2 ratio (from 134 +/- 57 mm Hg to 138 +/- 48 mm Hg). The oxygenation index ({mean airway pressure x Fio2 x 100}/Pao2) decreased in the prone-CV and prone-HFOV groups and was lower than in the supine-HFOV group. Interleukin-8 increased significantly in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) in supine-HFOV and prone-HFOV groups compared with prone-CV and supine-CV. Neutrophil counts were higher in the supine-HFOV group than in the prone-CV group.
                Although HFOV in the supine position does not improve oxygenation or lung inflammation, the prone position increases oxygenation and reduces lung inflammation in ARDS patients. Prone-HFOV produced similar improvement in oxygenation like prone-CV but was associated with higher BALF indexes of inflammation. In contrast, supine-HFOV did not improve gas exchange and was associated with enhanced lung inflammation. Observational studies of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in adults with the acute respiratory distress syndrome have demonstrated improvements in oxygenation. We designed a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing the safety and effectiveness of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation with conventional ventilation in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome; 148 adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (Pa(O2)/fraction of inspired oxygen <or= 200 mm Hg on 10 or more cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure) were randomized to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (n = 75) or conventional ventilation (n = 73). Applied mean airway pressure was significantly higher in the high-frequency oscillation group compared with the conventional ventilation group throughout the first 72 hours (p = 0.0001). The high-frequency oscillation group showed early (less than 16 hours) improvement in Pa(O2)/fraction of inspired oxygen compared with the conventional ventilation group (p = 0.008); however, this difference did not persist beyond 24 hours. Oxygenation index decreased similarly over the first 72 hours in both groups. Thirty-day mortality was 37% in the high-frequency oscillation group and was 52% in the conventional ventilation group (p = 0.102). The percentage of patients alive without mechanical ventilation at Day 30 was 36% and 31% in the high-frequency oscillation and conventional ventilation groups, respectively (p = 0.686). There were no significant differences in hemodynamic variables, oxygenation failure, ventilation failure, barotraumas, or mucus plugging between treatment groups. We conclude that high-frequency oscillation is a safe and effective mode of ventilation for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults. Soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1), an important adhesion molecule that mediates leukocyte-endothelial interaction, has been identified as a marker for the outcome of acute respiratory tract infection. We postulate that plasma ICAM-1 may be a valuable marker for both biological and clinical severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Sixteen pediatric patients (> 1 month and < 15 years of age) diagnosed with ARDS were recruited from the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at King Chulalongkorn Memorial University Hospital, Bangkok. The patients were randomized to receive either high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) or conventional mechanical ventilation. Plasma sICAM-1 was measured by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) on days 1, 3, 5 and 7 of ARDS. Plasma sICAM-1 levels in survivors and non-survivors of the HFOV and conventional treatment groups were compared. Nine and 7 patients constituted the control group receiving conventional treatment and HFOV group, respectively. Overall nine patients survived. The patients in the HFOV group had a better chance of survival compared to the controls (71% versus 31.5%), but it was not statistically significant (p = 0.2). The overall mortality was 45.7%. The mean plasma sICAM-1 levels (n = 13/16) were significantly elevated among non-survival patients as compared to survival patients at all time points, which indicates that an unfavorable outcome in ARDS is related to the degree of epithelial and endothelial alveolar cell injury. The elevation of plasma slCAM-1 on day 3 provided the best predictor of mortality (likelihood ratio 11.9, p < 0.001). It was concluded that HFOV facilitated a potentially better outcome compared to conventional treatment and it was associated with less lung injuries evidenced by lower plasma sICAM-1. The improvement in oxygenation with prone positioning is not persistent when patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are turned supine. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) aims to maintain an open lung volume by the application of a constant mean airway pressure. The aim of this study was to show that HFOV is able to prevent the impairment in oxygenation when ARDS patients are turned back from the prone to the supine position.
                Prospective, comparative randomized study.
                A medical intensive care unit.
                Forty-three ARDS patients with a Pao2/Fio2 ratio <150 at positive end-expiratory pressure > or =5 cm H2O.
                After an optimization period, the patients were assigned to one of three groups: a) conventional lung-protective mechanical ventilation in the prone position (12 hrs) followed by a 12-hr period of conventional lung-protective mechanical ventilation in the supine position (CV(prone)-CV(supine)); b) conventional lung-protective mechanical ventilation in the supine position (12 hrs) followed by HFOV in the supine position (12 hrs) (CV(supine)-HFOV(supine)); or c) conventional lung-protective mechanical ventilation in the prone position (12 hrs) followed by HFOV in the supine position (CV(prone)-HFOV(supine) group).
                Pao2/Fio2 ratio was higher at the end of the study period in the CV(prone)-HFOV(supine) group than in the CV(prone)-CV(supine) group (p < .02). Venous admixture at the end of the study period was lower in the CV(prone)-HFOV(supine) group than in the two other groups.
                HFOV maintained the improvement in oxygenation related to prone positioning when ARDS patients were returned to the supine position. To compare the safety and efficacy of high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) with conventional mechanical ventilation (CV) for early intervention in adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a multi-centre randomized trial in four intensive care units was conducted.
                Patients with ARDS were randomized to receive either HFOV or CV. In both treatment arms a priority was given to maintain lung volume while minimizing peak pressures. CV ventilation strategy was aimed at reducing tidal volumes. In the HFOV group, an open lung strategy was used. Respiratory and circulatory parameters were recorded and clinical outcome was determined at 30 days of follow up.
                The study was prematurely stopped. Thirty-seven patients received HFOV and 24 patients CV (average APACHE II score 21 and 20, oxygenation index 25 and 18 and duration of mechanical ventilation prior to randomization 2.1 and 1.5 days, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in survival without supplemental oxygen or on ventilator, mortality, therapy failure, or crossover. Adjustment by a priori defined baseline characteristics showed an odds ratio of 0.80 (95% CI 0.22-2.97) for survival without oxygen or on ventilator, and an odds ratio for mortality of 1.15 (95% CI 0.43-3.10) for HFOV compared with CV. The response of the oxygenation index (OI) to treatment did not differentiate between survival and death. In the HFOV group the OI response was significantly higher than in the CV group between the first and the second day. A post hoc analysis suggested that there was a relatively better treatment effect of HFOV compared with CV in patients with a higher baseline OI.
                No significant differences were observed, but this trial only had power to detect major differences in survival without oxygen or on ventilator. In patients with ARDS and higher baseline OI, however, there might be a treatment benefit of HFOV over CV. More research is needed to establish the efficacy of HFOV in the treatment of ARDS. We suggest that future studies are designed to allow for informative analysis in patients with higher OI. To compare the effectiveness of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation with conventional mechanical ventilation in pediatric patients with respiratory failure.
                Five tertiary care pediatric intensive care units.
                A prospective, randomized, clinical study with crossover.
                Seventy patients with either diffuse alveolar disease and/or airleak syndrome were randomized to receive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation or conventional mechanical ventilation.
                Patients randomized to receive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation were managed, using a strategy that consisted of aggressive increases in mean airway pressure to attain the "ideal" lung volume and to achieve an arterial oxygen saturation of > or = 90%, with an FIO2 of < or = 0.6. Patients who were randomized to receive conventional mechanical ventilation were treated with a strategy that utilized increases in end-expiratory pressure and inspiratory time to increase mean airway pressure and to limit increases in peak inspiratory pressure. Target blood gas values were the same for both groups. Crossover to the alternate ventilator was required if the patient met defined criteria for treatment failure.
                Physiologic data and ventilatory parameters were collected prospectively at predetermined intervals after randomization. Airleak Scores were derived daily, based on the chest radiograph and the patient's clinical condition. In the high-frequency oscillatory ventilation group, the PaO2/PAO2 ratio increased significantly and the oxygenation index (mean airway pressure x FIO2 x 100/PaO2) decreased significantly over time. There were no differences between the groups in duration of mechanical ventilation, frequency of airleak, Airleak Scores, or 30-day survival rates. Significantly fewer patients treated with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation required supplemental oxygenation at 30 days compared with patients managed with conventional ventilation. When ventilatory subgroups were compared, the patients managed with high-frequency oscillation only had significantly better ranked outcomes than patients managed with conventional ventilation only.
                Our results indicate that high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, utilizing an aggressive volume recruitment strategy, results in significant improvement in oxygenation compared with a conventional ventilatory strategy designed to limit increases in peak airway pressures. Furthermore, despite the use of higher mean airway pressures, the optimal lung volume strategy used in this study was associated with a lower frequency of barotrauma, as indicated by requirement for supplemental oxygen at 30 days, and improved outcome compared with conventional mechanical ventilation.
The findings of this systematic review suggest that HFO was a promising treatment for ALI and ARDS prior to the uptake of current lung protective ventilation strategies. These findings may not be applicable with current conventional care, pending the results of large multi-centre trials currently underway.