Intervention Review

You have full text access to this OnlineOpen article

High-frequency ventilation versus conventional ventilation for treatment of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome

  1. Sachin Sud1,*,
  2. Maneesh Sud2,
  3. Jan O Friedrich3,
  4. Hannah Wunsch4,
  5. Maureen O Meade5,
  6. Niall D Ferguson6,
  7. Neill KJ Adhikari7

Editorial Group: Cochrane Anaesthesia Group

Published Online: 28 FEB 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 1 MAR 2011

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004085.pub3

How to Cite

Sud S, Sud M, Friedrich JO, Wunsch H, Meade MO, Ferguson ND, Adhikari NKJ. High-frequency ventilation versus conventional ventilation for treatment of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004085. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004085.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Trillium Health Center, University of Toronto, Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Mississauga, Canada

  2. 2

    University of Toronto, Department of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

  3. 3

    University of Toronto and Keenan Research Centre/Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Critical Care and Medicine Departments, St. Michael's Hospital, Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

  4. 4

    Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, Department of Anesthesiology, College of Physicians and Surgeons; Department of Epidemiology, New York, NY, USA

  5. 5

    McMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

  6. 6

    University Health Network and Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

  7. 7

    University of Toronto, and Department of Critical Care Medicine and Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

*Sachin Sud, Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Trillium Health Center, University of Toronto, Mississauga, Canada. sachinsud@aol.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed)
  2. Published Online: 28 FEB 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Mortality, outcome: 1.1 Hospital or 30-day mortality.
[Figure 5]
Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison: 2 Adverse events, outcome: 2.1 Treatment failure (intractable hypoxia, hypotension, acidosis, hypercapnoea requiring discontinuation of study intervention).
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 1 Hospital or 30-day Mortality.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 2 Hospital or 30-day Mortality (Bollen 2005 patients lost to follow-up excluded).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 3 Hospital or 30-day mortality: Adult versus paediatric trials.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 4 Hospital or 30-day Mortality: Low risk of bias versus unclear risk of bias.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Mortality, Outcome 5 Hospital or 30-day Mortality: Lung protective ventilation mandatory vs. not mandatory.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 1 Treatment Failure (Intractable Hypoxia, Hypotension, Acidosis, Hypercapnea requiring discontinuation of study intervention).
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 2 Barotrauma.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 3 Hypotension.
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 4 Hypotension (Shah and Mentzelopoulos included).
[Analysis 2.5]
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Adverse events, Outcome 5 ETT Obstruction.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Ventilator dependency, Outcome 1 Duration of Mechanical Ventilation.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Physiological endpoints (ratio of means), Outcome 1 PaO2/FiO2 (Ratio of Means).
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Physiological endpoints (ratio of means), Outcome 2 Oxygenation Index (Ratio of Means).
[Analysis 4.3]
Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Physiological endpoints (ratio of means), Outcome 3 PaCO2 (Ratio of Means).
[Analysis 4.4]
Analysis 4.4. Comparison 4 Physiological endpoints (ratio of means), Outcome 4 Mean Airway Pressure (Ratio of Means).