ライフサイエンスコーパス: HFOV

1 HFOV animals had significantly better lung inflation pat

2 HFOV increased barotrauma risk compared with conventiona

3 HFOV increases mortality for most patients with ARDS but

4 ho were treated with HFOV plus iNO (n = 14), HFOV alone (n = 12), CMV plus iNO (n = 35), and CMV alon

5 A model consisting of a HFOV and circuit, 4.5-mm endotracheal tube, and lung sim

6 From 12 h through 10 d age, HFOV animals had consistently lower fraction of inspired

7 AIL-HFOV improved oxygenation and hemodynamic performance in

8 decreased from 40 to 9 after 30 mins of AIL-HFOV.

9 re readily achieved after institution of AIL-HFOV.

10 We believe that AIL-HFOV deserves future study and development for the treat

11 Although HFOV is theoretically appealing and may improve outcomes

12 perflubron distribution during both CMV and HFOV.

13 24 hrs of treatment, both HFOV plus iNO and HFOV alone resulted in greater improvement in Pao2/Fio2

14 of the uncertainty over the range of iNO and HFOV settings used clinically.

15 , MPO activity from lung extracts of PLV and HFOV animals was significantly lower than that of CMV an

16 Specimens from the PLV and HFOV groups showed a marked decrease in alveolar protein

17 ng samples of animals supported with PLV and HFOV had significantly lower neutrophil counts when comp

18 index was affected by rotating position and HFOV mode of ventilation after 10 mL/kg of perflubron, a

19 uld compare different algorithms of applying HFOV to determine the optimal techniques for achieving o

20 ategy that targets lung recruitment, such as HFOV.

21 In contrast, both HFOV and CV + PLV caused sustained improvements in oxyge

22 After 24 hrs of treatment, both HFOV plus iNO and HFOV alone resulted in greater improve

23 culate that the enhanced lung recruitment by HFOV enhances the effects of low dose iNO on gas exchang

24 Lung neutrophil accumulation was reduced by HFOV, PLV, and iNO compared to CV.

25 Among infants ventilated by HFOV, those receiving inhaled NO had a reduced need for

26 tal of 1764 patients were matched to compare HFOV and CMV, whereas 942 patients were matched to compa

27 multicenter, randomized trial that compared HFOV with conventional ventilation immediately after bir

28 stress syndrome patients (n = 148) comparing HFOV with a pressure-control ventilation strategy (Pao(2

29 ently identified randomized trials comparing HFOV with conventional ventilation for adults with ARDS.

30 Three groups were treated with HFOV (control HFOV, HFOV + iNO, HFOV + PLV).

31 During HFOV, three of five animals had an identifiable critical

32 bjective method (1) to optimize P(aw) during HFOV and (2) to assess the efficacy of treatments and pr

33 directly monitor lung volume changes during HFOV and use the lowest possible airway pressures after

34 pressure-volume curve was constructed during HFOV as mean airway pressure was increased from 10 to 40

35 Tidal volume delivery during HFOV is altered by oscillatory pressure amplitude (Delta

36 ermits easy and accurate iNO delivery during HFOV.

37 c effects of varying perflubron doses during HFOV in a long-term study of the lung-protective effects

38 Although heliox improved gas exchange during HFOV in our model, increased tidal volume delivery may l

39 ion and modestly improves oxygenation during HFOV in a model of acute lung injury.

40 can significantly improve oxygenation during HFOV.

41 was measured with a pneumotachometer during HFOV with the SensorMedics 3100A.

42 arly HFOV included 1,064 patients (181 early HFOV vs. 883 CMV/late HFOV) with significant hypoxia (ox

43 Application of HFOV and early HFOV compared with CMV in children with acute respirator

44 were significantly higher in HFOV and early HFOV patients compared with CMV patients.

45 After adjusting for risk category, early HFOV use was associated with a longer duration of mechan

46 s 942 patients were matched to compare early HFOV and CMV.

47 lar matching process was performed for early HFOV and CMV patients.

48 redicting the probability of receiving early HFOV included 1,064 patients (181 early HFOV vs. 883 CMV

49 The SMR in the early HFOV group was 1.62 (95% CI, 1.31-2.01) compared with an

50 uding important oxygenation variables, early HFOV was associated with a longer duration of mechanical

51 V: 14.6 vs 20.3 days, P < .001; CMV vs early HFOV: 14.6 vs 15.9 days, P < .001), ICU length of stay (

52 and mortality of patients treated with early HFOV matched with those treated with CMV/late HFOV.

53 genous surfactant, then randomized to either HFOV or LV-PPV by 5 min age.

54 nical ventilation for ARDS to undergo either HFOV with a Novalung R100 ventilator (Metran) or usual v

55 tality at 30 days was 321 of 785 (40.9%) for HFOV patients versus 288 of 767 (37.6%) for control subj

56 nt subgroups with differential outcomes from HFOV.

57 study population was divided into 2 groups: HFOV and CMV.

58 ustained improvements in oxygenation at 4 h (HFOV a/AO2 = 0.27 +/- 0.06, CV + PLV a/AO2 = 0.25 +/- 0.

59 er supported on HFOV, of which 210 (59%) had HFOV initiated within 24-48 hours of intubation.

60 groups were treated with HFOV (control HFOV, HFOV + iNO, HFOV + PLV).

61 ed with CMV (PLV, 4 +/- 0.3 neutrophils/hpf; HFOV, 4 +/- 0.5 neutrophils/hpf; CMV, 10 +/- 0.9 neutrop

62 Neither human HFOV trials nor premature animal studies have adequately

63 8.1%, P < .001) were significantly higher in HFOV and early HFOV patients compared with CMV patients.

64 ary mechanics were significantly improved in HFOV animals at nearly every time point analyzed from 12

65 It is currently unknown whether initiating HFOV at a lower severity threshold would result in reduc

66 treated with HFOV (control HFOV, HFOV + iNO, HFOV + PLV).

67 the individual and combined effects of iNO, HFOV, and PLV (perflubron) in 31 extremely premature lam

68 , 61 +/- 13.3 units of MPO activity/lung/kg; HFOV, 43.3 +/- 6.8 units of MPO activity/lung/kg; CMV, 1

69 roup was further divided into early and late HFOV.

70 64 patients (181 early HFOV vs. 883 CMV/late HFOV) with significant hypoxia (oxygenation index >/= 8)

71 FOV matched with those treated with CMV/late HFOV.

72 0.92-1.79; P = 0.15) compared with CMV/late HFOV.

73 ugh enhanced alveolization was not observed, HFOV for 1 to 2 mo resulted in consistently more uniform

74 Application of HFOV and early HFOV compared with CMV in children with a

75 oderate-to-severe ARDS, early application of HFOV, as compared with a ventilation strategy of low tid

76 The combination of HFOV and perflubron administration is a novel strategy i

77 The combination of HFOV and perflubron administration was well tolerated he

78 We conclude that the combination of HFOV with iNO causes a greater improvement in oxygenatio

79 ere were significant differences in favor of HFOV in several other measures of respiratory function,

80 ics and may contribute to the formulation of HFOV clinical strategies.

81 suggested that early (2 days) initiation of HFOV is more likely to result in survival than delayed i

82 nventional ventilation before institution of HFOV compared with patients without preexisting lung dis

83 ide useful information on the interaction of HFOV with altered lung mechanics and may contribute to t

84 matching was performed as a 1-to-1 match of HFOV and CMV patients.

85 erol delivery by MDI in a pediatric model of HFOV is negligible, regardless of the operating frequenc

86 During the weaning phase of HFOV, a relative decrease in RIP-measured volume of >10%

87 e, case reports and observational studies of HFOV in patients failing conventional ventilation strate

88 hypothesized that the combined treatment of HFOV and inhalation of low-dose NO would improve oxygena

89 For clinical use in adults, a trial of HFOV may be considered when Fio(2) requirements exceed 6

90 The use of HFOV had no significant effect on 30-day mortality in pa

91 The use of HFOV improves oxygenation by increasing lung recruitment

92 oadly reflect current practice in the use of HFOV in pediatric patients.

93 s demonstrate improvements in oxygenation on HFOV though reductions in mortality are lacking.

94 providing optimal care to adult patients on HFOV.

95 skills and knowledge in managing patients on HFOV.

96 re not dosed with perflubron and remained on HFOV for the 1-hr period of data collection.

97 E, 353 patients (14%) were ever supported on HFOV, of which 210 (59%) had HFOV initiated within 24-48

98 Ventilation with CMV or HFOV with or without iNO.

99 antly lower than that of animals in the PLV, HFOV, and CMV groups (control, 2.2 +/- 2 units of MPO ac

100 Pre- and post-HFOV pressure-volume curves were obtained by supersyring

101 ely evaluated these factors during prolonged HFOV.

102 Early, prolonged HFOV significantly improved early lung function with sus

103 study was to compare the effect of prolonged HFOV with low tidal volume (VT) positive pressure ventil

104 Of these, 902 (9.8%) received HFOV, whereas 8275 (90.2%) received CMV.

105 patients (12%) in the control group received HFOV for refractory hypoxemia.

106 esized that two lung recruitment strategies (HFOV and PLV) would have similar effects on gas exchange

107 We conclude that HFOV and PLV with perflubron cause similar improvements

108 We speculate that HFOV enhances the effectiveness of inhaled NO treatment

109 This study suggests that HFOV is as effective and safe as the conventional strate

110 The HFOV group had superior results on a test of small-airwa

111 The HFOV group underwent HFOV for a median of 3 days (interq

112 The HFOV group was further divided into early and late HFOV.

113 (SatPC) in alveolar lavage was lower for the HFOV group than for the other ventilation groups at 10 h

114 red with the conventional-therapy group, the HFOV group had significantly higher ratings from teacher

115 curred in 166 of 398 patients (41.7%) in the HFOV group and 163 of 397 patients (41.1%) in the conven

116 Thirty-day mortality was 37% in the HFOV group and 52% in the conventional ventilation group

117 mprovement in Pao(2)/Fio(2) (p =.008) in the HFOV group but no significant difference in oxygenation

118 Patients in the HFOV group received higher doses of midazolam than did p

119 In addition, more patients in the HFOV group received vasoactive drugs (91% vs. 84%, P=0.0

120 to 240], P<0.001), and more patients in the HFOV group than in the control group received neuromuscu

121 The SMR in the HFOV group was 2.00 (95% CI, 1.71-2.35) compared with an

122 In-hospital mortality was 47% in the HFOV group, as compared with 35% in the control group (r

123 change in Pao /Fio ratio was greatest in the HFOV plus iNO group compared with the other treatment gr

124 oller to deliver fixed volumes of iNO to the HFOV circuit in the range 0 to 20 ppm iNO.

125 yses make supporting the current approach to HFOV less convincing.

126 s with new-onset, moderate-to-severe ARDS to HFOV targeting lung recruitment or to a control ventilat

127 dolescents who had been randomly assigned to HFOV with follow-up data from those who had been randoml

128 fter lung injury, subjects were converted to HFOV, and lung volume was optimized.

129 andomized to either CMV or were converted to HFOV.

130 Respiratory therapy procedures relevant to HFOV include setting endotracheal tube cuff leaks, perfo

131 However, not all patients tolerate HFOV and increased rates of barotrauma have been reporte

132 tremely prematurely, those who had undergone HFOV, as compared with those who had received convention

133 The HFOV group underwent HFOV for a median of 3 days (interquartile range, 2 to 8

134 a(CO(2)) 55-80 mm Hg), each piglet underwent HFOV with a fixed mean airway pressure, pressure oscilla

135 The animals were ventilated by using HFOV after lung injury.

136 this Opinion, the clinical experience using HFOV in adults in acute respiratory distress syndrome an

137 Mode of ventilation (HFOV or CMV) was determined by the patient's physician b

138 High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) and inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) have been reported

139 from high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) and mechanical test lung models with respect to de

140 h as high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) and partial liquid ventilation (PLV) also decrease

141 e of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) for acute respiratory failure in children is preva

142 e of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) has increased dramatically in the management of re

143 that high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) improves lung function, mechanics, and histopathol

144 ring high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) in a model of acute lung injury.

145 e of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) in children with acute respiratory failure have no

146 High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is an attractive alternative to conventional lung

147 ALE: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is theoretically beneficial for lung protection, b

148 High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) may reduce this secondary damage.

149 that high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) reduced mortality among adults with the acute resp

150 High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) using an open-lung strategy has been demonstrated

151 idal high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) while the lungs are expanded by an imposed airway

152 that high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), as compared with conventional ventilation, was as

153 with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), we developed and bench tested a system that permi

154 with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV).

155 with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV).

156 ing high- frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV).

157 ) or high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV, n = 5).

158 vs. high-frequency oscillatory ventilation [HFOV]) on perflubron distribution and oxygenation improv

159 Length of mechanical ventilation (CMV vs HFOV: 14.6 vs 20.3 days, P < .001; CMV vs early HFOV: 14

160 In addition, patients for whom HFOV acutely failed were analyzed separately.

161 rway function (z score for FEF75, -0.97 with HFOV vs. -1.19 with conventional therapy; adjusted diffe

162 e control group (relative risk of death with HFOV, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.09 to 1.64; P=0.0

163 n airway pressures for healing air leak with HFOV.

164 Immature baboons managed with HFOV had less pulmonary inflammation in the hyaline memb

165 underlying disease in neonates managed with HFOV.

166 After lung volume recruitment with HFOV, the initiation of HFO-PLV was best tolerated with

167 Three groups were treated with HFOV (control HFOV, HFOV + iNO, HFOV + PLV).

168 made between patients who were treated with HFOV plus iNO (n = 14), HFOV alone (n = 12), CMV plus iN

169 al piglet model of pneumothorax treated with HFOV, with amplitude adjusted to maintain constant alveo

170 After 72 hrs, treatment with HFOV alone resulted in a greater improvement in Pao2/Fio

171 ntial role of adjunctive therapies used with HFOV (e.g., prone ventilation, inhaled nitric oxide, aer

172 n the creation and implementation of written HFOV guidelines (e.g., algorithms) to optimize patient c