High-frequency jet ventilation. A prospective randomized evaluation.
Three hundred nine patients were randomly allocated to two ventilatory protocols; 157 patients were supported with a volume-cycled ventilator (VCV) (Bear Medical BEAR 1) and 152 with a high-frequency jet ventilatory (HFJV) developed at our institution. The two ventilators were compared for safety, reliability, ease of use, and efficacy in maintaining gas exchange. On VCV, end points of therapy were: fractional concentration of oxygen in the inspired gas (FIo2) less than or equal to 0.40; arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2) greater than or equal to 70 mm Hg; cardiac index (CI) greater than or equal to 3.5 L/min/sq m; and spontaneous respiratory rate less than or equal to eight breaths per minute. On HFJV, end points were: FIo2 less than or equal to 0.45; arterial oxygen saturation greater than or equal to 0.90; and CI greater than or equal to 3.5 L/min/sq m. Spontaneous ventilation and pulmonary venous admixture reduction were the goals on VCV, with oxygen transport the goal on HFJV, Total duration of use of the ventilators was approximately 800 days with both types of devices; there were no technical failures, and the incidence of barotrauma was less than 5 percent. The end point of mechanical ventilation was reached by a significantly higher percentage of the patients randomized to HFJV. Patients who failed to reach the therapeutic goal within 24 hours were crossed over to the other form of support. Those crossed from VCV to HFJV improved more rapidly and in greater number than those crossed from HFJV to VCV. When survival and total duration of stay in the intensive care unit were considered, there was no difference between VCV and HFJV. Considering data on gas exchange, VCV provided a higher PaO2 at equivalent positive end-respiratory pressure than HFJV. Alveolar ventilation was slightly better on HFJV. Differences were statistically but not clinically significant. On HFJV, oxygenation and ventilation were maintained with lower peak inspiratory pressures and smaller tidal volumes than those required for VCV. This investigation proves that HFJV is a safe and reliable method to provide mechanical support which does not, at this time, offer obvious benefits over VCV.
D005260:Female; D006439:Hemodynamics; D006801:Humans; D007902:Length of Stay; D008297:Male; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011659:Pulmonary Gas Exchange; D011897:Random Allocation; D012121:Respiration, Artificial / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D012131:Respiratory Insufficiency / Q000401:mortality / Q000628:therapy*