• Robinder G Khemani and Christopher J L Newth.
• University of Southern California, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, CA 90027, USA. rkhemani@chla.usc.edu
• Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2010 Dec 15;182(12):1465-74.

AbstractPediatric practitioners face unique challenges when attempting to translate or adapt adult-derived evidence regarding ventilation practices for acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome into pediatric practice. Fortunately or unfortunately, there appears to be selective adoption of adult practices for pediatric mechanical ventilation, many of which pose considerable challenges or uncertainty when translated to pediatrics. These differences, combined with heterogeneous management strategies within pediatric critical care, can complicate clinical practice and make designing robust clinical trials in pediatric acute respiratory failure particularly difficult. These issues surround the lack of explicit ventilator protocols in pediatrics, either computer or paper based; differences in modes of conventional ventilation and perceived marked differences in the approach to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation; challenges with patient recruitment; the shortcomings of the definition of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome; the more reliable yet still somewhat unpredictable relationship between lung injury severity and outcome; and the reliance on potentially biased surrogate outcome measures, such as ventilator-free days, for all pediatric trials. The purpose of this review is to highlight these challenges, discuss pertinent work that has begun to address them, and propose potential solutions or future investigations that may help facilitate comprehensive trials on pediatric mechanical ventilation and define clinical practice standards.

13 keywords...

hide…