Johnson Alice H, Peacock Janet L, Greenough Anne, Marlow Neil, Limb Elizabeth S, Marston Louise, Calvert Sandra A
Department of Child Health, St. George's Hospital Medical School, London, United Kingdom.
N Engl J Med. 2002 Aug 29;347(9):633-42. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020432.
There remains uncertainty concerning the safety and efficacy of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation as compared with those of conventional ventilation for the respiratory support of very preterm infants. We conducted a multicenter trial to determine whether early intervention with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation reduced mortality and the incidence of chronic lung disease among newborns with a gestational age of 28 weeks or less.
We randomly assigned preterm infants with a gestational age of 23 to 28 weeks to either conventional ventilation or high-frequency oscillatory ventilation within one hour after birth. Randomization was stratified according to center and gestational age (23 to 25 weeks or 26 to 28 weeks).
A total of 400 infants were assigned to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, and 397 were assigned to conventional ventilation. The composite primary outcome (death or chronic lung disease, diagnosed at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age) occurred in 66 percent of the infants assigned to receive high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and 68 percent of those in the conventional-ventilation group (relative risk in the group assigned to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, 0.98; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.08). Similar proportions of infants died or had chronic lung disease in each gestational-age group. In both treatment groups treatment failure occurred in 10 percent of infants (relative risk in the group assigned to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, 0.99; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.66 to 1.50). There were no significant differences between the groups in a range of other secondary outcome measures, including serious brain injury and air leak.
The results obtained with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and conventional ventilation do not differ significantly in the early treatment of respiratory disease in very preterm infants. Assessment of long-term effects will require additional follow-up.
与传统通气相比,高频振荡通气用于极早产儿呼吸支持的安全性和有效性仍存在不确定性。我们进行了一项多中心试验,以确定早期采用高频振荡通气干预能否降低胎龄28周及以下新生儿的死亡率和慢性肺病发病率。
我们将胎龄23至28周的早产儿在出生后1小时内随机分配至传统通气组或高频振荡通气组。随机分组按中心和胎龄(23至25周或26至28周)进行分层。
共有400例婴儿被分配至高频振荡通气组,397例被分配至传统通气组。复合主要结局(在孕龄36周时诊断为死亡或慢性肺病)在接受高频振荡通气的婴儿中发生率为66%,在传统通气组中为68%(高频振荡通气组的相对风险为0.98;95%置信区间为0.89至1.08)。每个胎龄组中死亡或患慢性肺病的婴儿比例相似。两个治疗组中均有10%的婴儿出现治疗失败(高频振荡通气组的相对风险为0.99;95%置信区间为0.66至1.50)。在一系列其他次要结局指标方面,包括严重脑损伤和气漏,两组之间无显著差异。
在极早产儿呼吸系统疾病的早期治疗中,高频振荡通气和传统通气所获得的结果无显著差异。对长期影响的评估需要进一步随访。