Introduction •
Mechanical ventilation can perpetuate lung injury
•
Repetitive overstretching or collapse of lung units can generate local and systemic inflammation, multiorgan failure and death
•
Clinical trials support the use: - Smaller tidal volumes (6 ml/kg) - Higher levels of PEEP
High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) - Deliver small tidal volumes (1 to 2 ml/kg) - High rates (3 to 15 breaths/sec) Randomized trials suggest that HFOV improve oxygenation and survival •
These trials were limited by small sample sizes and outdated ventilation strategies for the control group •
They compared HFOV with a conventional ventilation in patients with new-onset, moderate-to-severe ARDS
Methods •
Multicenter randomized trial
•
We enrolled patients at the 27 centers in Canada, United States, Saudi Arabia, Chile, and India from July 2009 through August 2012
•
The trial protocol was approved by the research ethics board at each participating site
•
For HFOV, we used the Sensor Medics 3100B HighFrequency Oscillatory Ventilator
Patients Patients were eligible for inclusion: If they had onset of pulmonary symptoms within the previous 2 weeks •
Tracheal intubation
•
Hypoxemia (Pao2/Fio2 ≤200, Fio2 ≥0.5)
•
Bilateral air-space opacities on chest radiography
•
Patients excluded •
Hypoxemia related to left atrial hypertension
•
Expected 6-month mortality exceeding 50%
•
Suspected vasculitic pulmonary hemorrhage
•
Risk for intracranial hypertension
•
Neuromuscular disorders
•
< 16 years or > 85 years
•
Severe chronic respiratory disease
•
Weight was less than 35 kg
After enrollment, standardized ventilator settings was: Pressure control mode:
- Vt 6 ml/kg - Fio2: 0.60 with PEEP 10 cm H2O or higher
After 30 minutes If the Pao2/Fio2 remained at 200 or lower, patients underwent randomization
Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the HFOV group or to the conventional-ventilation group
HFOV Protocol
Control Ventilation Protocol •
Vt: 6 ml/kg, plateau Paw: 35 cm H2O or less, and high levels of PEEP
•
After an initial recruitment maneuver (same for the HFOV group)
•
Used pressure-control mode with PEEP: 20 cm H2O
•
For patients receiving pressure support with PEEP: 10 cm H2O or less and an Fio2 of 0.4 or less, there were no limits on Vt or Paw
Procedures in Both Groups â&#x20AC;˘
Patients with hypoxemia (Fio2 of 0.9 or greater), clinicians could institute prone positioning or NO
Statistical Analysis •
We summarized data using means with standard deviations, medians, interquartile ranges, proportions
•
Normally distributed data were compared with the use of Student’s t-test
•
Non normally distributed data with the use of Wilcoxon rank-sum test
•
Proportions with the use of Mantel–Haenszel chi-square test
Statistical Analysis â&#x20AC;˘
Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality
â&#x20AC;˘
We used logistic regression to adjust the treatment effect for baseline variables: - Age - APACHE II - Presence or absence of sepsis - Duration of hospitalization before randomization
Results Early Termination of the Trial After the 500-patient analysis, the steering committee terminated the trial â&#x20AC;˘
At the time of termination 548 patients had undergone randomization: â&#x20AC;˘
- 275 to the HFOV group - 273 to the control-ventilation group
Cardiorespiratory Results •
•
On day 1, mPaw in HFOV group: 31±2.6 cm H2O, Frequency: 5.5±1.0 Hz Control group underwent ventilation with: Vt: 6.1±1.3 ml/kg, PEEP: 18±3.2, Pplt: 32±5.7 cm H20
•
The mean Fio2 in the control group was similar to HFOV group
•
Fluid balance was higher in the HFOV group
Discussion â&#x20AC;˘
Early application of HFOV in patients with moderate to severe ARDS was associated with higher mortality than CV
â&#x20AC;˘
HFOV was associated with higher mPaw, greater use of sedatives, neuromuscular blockers, and vasoactive drugs
Reasons to end study
•
Increased mortality with HFOV in three consecutive analyses
•
Increased need for vasoactive drugs in the HFOV group suggested a mechanism of harm
•
Put patients at risk with little likelihood of benefit
Plausible mechanisms that may contribute to increased mortality with HFOV •
Higher mPaw may result in hemodynamic compromise
•
Decreasing venous return or directly affecting right ventricular function
•
Increased use of vasodilating sedative agents
•
Possibility of increased barotrauma
It is possible that an HFOV protocol that uses lower mean airway pressures, a different ratio of inspiratory-toexpiratory time, or a lower oscillatory frequency might have led to different results
Conclusions
In adults with moderate-to-severe ARDS, early application of HFOV, as compared with a ventilation strategy of low tidal volume and high positive endexpiratory pressure, does not reduce, and may increase, in-hospital mortality
Thanks