Skip to main content

Advertisement

We’d like to understand how you use our websites in order to improve them. Register your interest.

High-frequency oscillatory ventilation for PARDS: awaiting PROSPect

Recently, Wong et al. reported increased 28-day mortality among 328 children with pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS) managed with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) [1]. This study is an excellent example of gaining a better understanding of pediatric critical care through multicenter collaboration. Nonetheless, there are some nuances one should consider before interpreting the study results. Inherent to the study design, confounding by indication (i.e., the sickest patients are those most likely to receive a specific intervention) occurred albeit that the authors used advanced statistical techniques to address this. Furthermore, HFOV was largely employed as rescue without consistent criteria for its use and clinical management was done without a consistent protocol.

Although HFOV has been available for several decades, we have no data demonstrating an optimal physiologic approach to HFOV management in the acute and weaning phase. Most pediatric HFOV papers make no mention of recruitment maneuvers (RMs) and reported frequencies (F) in the range of 5–8 Hz [2]. Yet, optimizing lung volume by means of a RM may be physiologically necessary to recruit collapsed, atelectatic lung units to improve oxygenation and prevent exposure to larger, potentially more injurious pressure swings [3]. Low F is not in line with the concept of the corner frequency (Fc) [4]. Fc is the F with the lowest pressure cost of ventilation and thus the least injurious to the lung. In disease conditions with reduced respiratory system compliance, such as PARDS, Fc is increased indicating that the highest oscillatory F that still allows for adequate ventilation might be preferable. Also, there are no data guiding the HFOV weaning process, possibly explaining the observed increased ventilation times seen in patients managed with the oscillator [5].

We are now enrolling pediatric patients in the Prone and Oscillation Pediatric Clinical Trial (PROSpect) to address the issue surrounding the uncertainty regarding the role and optimal management of HFOV for PARDS. In this adaptive randomized control trial, patients with high moderate-to-severe PARDS (OI > 12) are randomized to test the hypothesis that prone versus supine positioning and HFOV versus conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) will result in a 2-day improvement in ventilator-free days. In this trial, CMV and HFOV are strictly protocolized, and the HFOV protocol makes use of staircase RMs, high F, and daily titration to improve the weaning process.

From our perspective, until we have the results of this RCT, there is therefore no need to abandon HFOV.

Availability of data and materials

No applicable

References

  1. 1.

    Wong JJ, Liu S, Dang H, Anantasit N, Phan PH, Phumeetham S, Qian S, Ong JSM, Gan CS, Chor YK, et al. The impact of high frequency oscillatory ventilation on mortality in paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):31.

  2. 2.

    Kneyber MC, van Heerde M, Markhorst DG. Reflections on pediatric high-frequency oscillatory ventilation from a physiologic perspective. Respir Care. 2012;57(9):1496–504.

  3. 3.

    Pillow JJ. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation: mechanisms of gas exchange and lung mechanics. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(3 Suppl):S135–41.

  4. 4.

    Venegas JG, Fredberg JJ. Understanding the pressure cost of ventilation: why does high-frequency ventilation work? Crit Care Med. 1994;22(9 Suppl):S49–57.

  5. 5.

    Bateman ST, Borasino S, Asaro LA, Cheifetz IM, Diane S, Wypij D, Curley MA, Investigators RS. Early high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in pediatric acute respiratory failure. A propensity score analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(5):495–503.

Download references

Acknowledgements

None

Funding

None

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

MK, IC, and MC drafted the letter and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin C. J. Kneyber.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kneyber, M.C.J., Cheifetz, I.M. & Curley, M.A.Q. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation for PARDS: awaiting PROSPect. Crit Care 24, 118 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-2829-3

Download citation