• Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Oct 2004

    Review Meta Analysis

    Long versus short inspiratory times in neonates receiving mechanical ventilation.

    • C O F Kamlin and P G Davis.
    • Department of Neonatology, Royal Women's Hospital, Gratton Street, Carlton, Victoria, 3053, Australia. omar.kamlin@rwh.org.au
    • Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18 (4): CD004503.

    BackgroundWhen intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) was introduced in newborn infants with hypoxic respiratory failure from hyaline membrane disease (HMD), mortality was high and air leaks problematic. This barotrauma was caused by the high peak inspiratory pressures (PIP) required to oxygenate stiff lungs. The primary determinants of mean airway pressure (and thus oxygenation) on a conventional ventilator are the inspiratory time (IT), PIP, positive end expiratory pressure and gas flow rates. In the 1970s uncontrolled studies on a small number of infants demonstrated a benefit in reducing barotrauma using a long IT and slow rates. This strategy was subsequently widely adopted. Current neonatal ventilators have been designed to minimise lung injury but rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remain high. It is therefore important that the inspiratory time causing least harm is used.ObjectivesTo determine in mechanically ventilated newborn infants whether the use of a long rather than a short IT reduces the rates of death, air leak and BPD.Search StrategyThe standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG) was used. Searches of electronic and other databases were performed. These included MEDLINE (1966 - April 2004) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2003). In order to detect trials that may not have been published, the abstracts of the Society for Pediatric Research, and the European Society for Pediatric Research were searched from 1998 - 2003.Selection CriteriaAll randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials enrolling mechanically ventilated infants with or without respiratory pathology evaluating the use of long versus short IT (including randomised crossover studies with outcomes restricted to differences in oxygenation).Data Collection And AnalysisThe standard method of the Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group were used. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, and the methodological quality of each trial, and extracted the data. The data were analysed using relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) and their 95% confidence intervals. A fixed effect model was used for meta-analyses.Main ResultsIn five studies, recruiting a total of 694 infants, a long IT was associated with a significant increase in air leak [typical RR 1.56 (1.25, 1.94), RD 0.13 (0.07, 0.20), NNT 8 (5, 14)]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of BPD. Long IT was associated with an increase in mortality before hospital discharge that reached borderline statistical significance [typical RR 1.26 (1.00, 1.59), RD 0.07 (0.00, 0.13)].Reviewers' ConclusionsCaution should be exercised in applying these results to modern neonatal intensive care, because the studies included in this review were conducted prior to the introduction of antenatal steroids, post natal surfactant and the use of synchronised modes of ventilatory support. Most of the participants had single pathology (HMD) and no studies examined the effects of IT on newborns ventilated for other reasons such as meconium aspiration and congenital heart disease (lungs with normal compliance). However, the increased rates of air leaks and deaths using long ITs are clinically important; thus, infants with poorly compliant lungs should be ventilated with a short IT.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.