title: Is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation more effective and safer than conventional protective ventilation in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Comprehensively evaluating the efficacy and safety of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is important to allow clinicians who are using or considering this intervention to make appropriate decisions.
  
  
  METHODS
  To find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFOV with conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) as an initial treatment for adult ARDS patients, we searched electronic databases (including PubMed, MedLine, Springer Link, Elsevier Science Direct, ISI web of knowledge, and EMBASE) with the following terms: "acute respiratory distress syndrome", "acute lung injury", and "high frequency oscillation ventilation". Additional sources included reference lists from the identified primary studies and relevant meta-analyses. Two investigators independently screened articles and extracted data. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We included 6 RCTs with a total of 1,608 patients in this meta-analysis. Compared with CMV, HFOV did not significantly reduce the mortality at 30 or 28 days. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.051 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.813 to 1.358). ICU mortality was also not significantly reduced in HFOV group, with a pooled RR of 1.218 (95% CI 0.925 to 1.604). The pooled effect sizes of HFOV for oxygenation failure, ventilation failure and duration of mechanical ventilation were 0.557 (95% CI 0.351 to 0.884), 0.892 (95% CI 0.435 to 1.829) and 0.079 (95% CI -0.045 to 0.203), respectively. The risk of barotrauma and hypotension were similar between the CMV group and HFOV group, with a RR of 1.205 (95% CI 0.834 to 1.742) and a RR of 1.326 (95% CI 0.271 to 6.476), respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Although HFOV seems not to increase the risk of barotrauma or hypotension, and reduces the risk of oxygenation failure, it does not improve survival in adult acute respiratory distress syndrome patients.
authors.forename: Xiao-ling
authors.initials: XL
authors.lastname: Gu
authors.forename: Guan-nan
authors.initials: GN
authors.lastname: Wu
authors.forename: Yan-wen
authors.initials: YW
authors.lastname: Yao
authors.forename: Dong-hong
authors.initials: DH
authors.lastname: Shi
authors.forename: Yong
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Song
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D006612:High-Frequency Ventilation / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D007362:Intensive Care Units / Q000639:trends; D009026:Mortality / Q000639:trends; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods* / Q000401:mortality; D012121:Respiration, Artificial / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods; D012128:Respiratory Distress Syndrome / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000401:mortality / Q000628:therapy*; D016896:Treatment Outcome