Skip to main content

Five-year single-centre review of ARDS patients receiving high-frequency oscillatory ventilation

Introduction

Two recent RCTs (OSCAR and OSCILLATE [1],[2]) showed that high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) had no positive impact on mortality. We present our experience over 5 years.

Methods

Adult ARDS patients who received HFOV from 2008 to 2012 were included. Demographics, illness severity and outcomes were collected retrospectively.

Results

A total of 118 patients were included; 56.8% were male, mean age was 54.8 years. RRT use was 45% during admission. Vasoactive agent use and neuromuscular blockade infusion rate was 81.9 and 29.7% pre HFOV respectively. The 28-day and 6-month mortality was 61.9 and 70.3%. A total of 60.1% had less than 48 hours conventional ventilation (CV) pre HFOV. The 6-month mortality was 64.8% for this group. Patients who had over 48 hours CV pre HFOV had a 6-month mortality of 76.6%. See Table 1.

Table 1

Conclusion

Mortality rates were higher than in recent trials [1],[2]. Our patients represent a more critically unwell group with lower PF ratios pre HFOV and high vasoactive and RRT use. HFOV may still have a role in the treatment of these very sick patients with treatment refractory to conventional ventilation.

References

  1. Young D, et al: High-frequency oscillation for ARDS. N Engl J Med. 2013, 368: 806-813. 10.1056/NEJMoa1215716.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferguson N, et al: High-frequency oscillation in early ARDS. N Engl J Med. 2013, 368: 795-805. 10.1056/NEJMoa1215554.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pathmanathan, N., Smith, N., Allgar, V. et al. Five-year single-centre review of ARDS patients receiving high-frequency oscillatory ventilation. Crit Care 18 (Suppl 1), P338 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc13528

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/cc13528

Keywords

  • Public Health
  • Mortality Rate
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Positive Impact
  • Infusion Rate