title: Pro/con clinical debate: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation is better than conventional ventilation for premature infants.
abstract: Arguably one of the most important advances in critical care medicine in recent years has been the understanding that mechanical ventilators can impart harm and that lung-protective ventilation strategies can save lives. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation appears ideally suited for lung protection at first glance. Two camps of opinion exist, however, even in neonates where this modality has been most extensively studied. In the present debate, the prevailing arguments from each of those camps are made available for the reader to decide.
authors: Neonatologist, Division of Neonatology, Schneider Children's Hospital, North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, New Hyde Park, NY, USA.
authors: Sherry E
authors: SE
authors: Courtney
authors: David J
authors: DJ
authors: Durand
authors: Jeanette M
authors: JM
authors: Asselin
authors: Eric C
authors: EC
authors: Eichenwald
authors: Ann R
authors: AR
authors: Stark
mesh_terms: D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D006611:High-Frequency Jet Ventilation / Q000009:adverse effects*; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D007234:Infant, Premature; D012121:Respiration, Artificial; D012127:Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn / Q000628:therapy*