Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

ونتیلاسیون نوسانی انتخابی با فرکانس بالا در مقابل ونتیلاسیون متداول در مدیریت بالینی اختلال عملکرد حاد ریوی در نوزادان نارس

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Clark 1992 {published and unpublished data}

Clark RH, Gerstmann DL, Null DM, deLemos RA. Prospective randomized comparison of high‐frequency oscillatory and conventional ventilation in respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatrics 1992;89(1):5‐12. [PUBMED: 1728021]

Courtney 2002 {published data only}

Courtney SE, Durand DJ, Asselin JM, Hudak ML, Aschner JL, Shoemaker CT, Neonatal Ventilation Study Group. High‐frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional mechanical ventilation for very‐low‐birth‐weight Infants. New England Journal of Medicine 2002;347(9):643‐52. [PUBMED: 12200551]
Durand DJ, Asselin JM, Hudak ML, Aschner JL, McArtor RD, Cleary JP, et al. Early high frequency oscillatory ventilation versus synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation in very low birth weight infants: a pilot study of two ventilation protocols. Journal of Perinatology 2001;21(4):221‐9. [PUBMED: 11533838]

Craft 2003 {published data only}

Craft SP, Bhandari V, Finer NN. The sy‐fi study: a randomized prospective trial of synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation versus a high‐frequency flow interrupter in infants less than 1000 g. Journal of Perinatology 2003;23(1):14‐9. [PUBMED: 12556921]

Dani 2006 {published data only}

Dani C, Bertini G, Pezzati M, Filippi L, Pratesi S, Caviglioli C, et al. Effects of pressure support ventilation plus volume guarantee vs. high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation on lung inflammation in preterm infants. Pediatric Pulmonology 2006;41(3):242‐9. [PUBMED: 16397875]

Durand 2001 {published data only}

Durand DJ, Asselin JM, Hudak ML, Aschner JL, McArtor RD, Cleary JP, et al. Early high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation versus synchronized mandatory ventilation in very low birth weight infants: a pilot study of two ventilation protocols. Journal of Perinatology 2001;21(4):221‐9. [PUBMED: 11533838]

Gerstmann 1996 {published and unpublished data}

Gerstmann DR, Minton SD, Stoddard RA. Results of the Provo multicenter surfactant high frequency oscillatory ventilation controlled trial. Pediatric Research 1995;37:333A.
Gerstmann DR, Minton SD, Stoddard RA, Meredith KS. The use of early high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation in respiratory distress syndrome. Clinical Research 1994;42:109A.
Gerstmann DR, Minton SD, Stoddard RA, Meredith KS, Bertrand JM. Results of the Provo multicenter surfactant high frequency oscillatory ventilation controlled trial. Pediatric Research 1995;37:333A.
Gerstmann DR, Minton SD, Stoddard RA, Meredith KS, Monarco F, Bertrand JM, et al. The Provo multicenter early high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation trial: improved pulmonary and clinical outcome in respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatrics 1996;98(6 Pt 1):1044‐57. [PUBMED: 8951252]
Gerstmann DR, Wood K, Miller A, Steffen M, Ogden B, Stoddard RA, et al. Childhood outcome after early high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatrics 2001;108(3):617‐23. [PUBMED: 11533327]

HIFI 1989 {published data only}

Abbasi S, Bhutani VK, Spitzer AR, Fox WW. Pulmonary mechanics in preterm neonates with respiratory failure treated with high‐frequency compared with conventional mechanical ventilation. Pediatrics 1991;87(4):487‐93. [PUBMED: 2011425]
Gerhardt T, Reifenberg L, Goldberg RN, Bancalari E. Pulmonary function in preterm infants whose lungs were ventilated conventionally or by high‐frequency oscillation. Journal of Pediatrics 1989;115(1):121‐6. [PUBMED: 2738780]
The HIFI study group. High frequency oscillatory ventilation compared with conventional mechanical ventilation in the treatment of respiratory failure in preterm infants. New England Journal of Medicine 1989;320(2):88‐93. [PUBMED: 2643039]
The HIFI study group. High frequency oscillatory ventilation compared with conventional mechanical ventilation in the treatment of respiratory failure in preterm infants: assessment of pulmonary function at 9 months of corrected age. Journal of Pediatrics 1990a;116(6):933‐41. [PUBMED: 2112188]
The HIFI study group. High frequency oscillatory ventilation compared with conventional mechanical ventilation in the treatment of respiratory failure in preterm infants: neurodevelopmental status at 16 to 24 months of postterm age. Journal of Pediatrics 1990b;117(6):939‐46. [PUBMED: 1701005]

Johnson 2002 {published data only}

Greenough A, Peacock J, Zivanovic S, Alcazar‐Paris M, Lo J, Marlow N, et al. United Kingdom Oscillation Study: long‐term outcomes of a randomised trial of two modes of neonatal ventilation. Health Technology Assessment 2014;18(41):1‐95. [PUBMED: 24972254]
Johnson AH, Peacock JL, Greenough A, Marlow N, Limb ES, Marston L, et al. United Kingdom Oscillation Study Group. High‐frequency oscillatory ventilation for the prevention of chronic lung disease of prematurity. New England Journal of Medicine 2002;347(9):633‐42. [PUBMED: 12200550]
Osborn DA, Evans N. Randomized trial of high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation: effects on systemic blood flow in very preterm infants. Journal of Pediatrics 2003;143(2):192‐8. [PUBMED: 12970631]
Thomas MR, Rafferty GF, Limb ES, Peacock JL, Clavert SA, Marlow N, et al. Pulmonary function at follow‐up of very preterm infants from the United Kingdom oscillation study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2004;169(7):868‐72. [PUBMED: 14693671]
Zivanovic S, Peacock J, Alcazar‐Paris M, Lo JW, Lunt A, United Kingdom Oscillation Study Group. Late outcomes of a randomized trial of high‐frequency oscillation in neonates. New England Journal of Medicine 2014;370(12):1121‐30. [PUBMED: 24645944]

Lista 2008 {published data only}

Lista G, Castoldi F, Bianci S, Battaglioli M, Cavigioli F, Bosoni MA. Volume guarantee versus high‐frequency ventilation: lung inflammation in preterm infants. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2008;93(4):F252‐6. [PUBMED: 17405870]

Moriette 2001 {published data only}

Moriette G, Paris‐Llado J, Walti H, Escande B, Magny JF, Cambonie G, et al. Prospective randomized multicenter comparison of high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation and conventional ventilation in preterm infants of less than 30 weeks with respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatrics 2001;107(2):363‐72. [PUBMED: 11158471]
Moriette G, Walti H, Salanave B, Chagnot D, Magny JF, Cambonie G, et al. Prospective randomized multicenter comparison of high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) and conventional ventilation (CV) in preterm infants < 30 weeks gestational age (GA) with RDS. Pediatric Research 1999;45:212A.
Truffert P, Paris‐Llado J, Escande B, Magny JF, Cambonie G, Saliba E, et al. Neuromotor outcome at 2 years of very preterm infants who were treated with high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation or conventional ventilation for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatrics 2007;119(4):e860‐5. [PUBMED: 17339385]

Ogawa 1993 {published data only}

Ogawa Y, Miyasaka K, Kawano T, Imura S, Inukai K, Okuyama K, et al. A multicentre randomised trial of high frequency oscillatory ventilation as compared with conventional mechanical ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory failure. Early Human Development 1993;32:1‐10.

Plavka 1999 {published data only}

Plavka R, Kopecky P, Sebron V, Svihovec P, Zlatohlavkova B, Janus V. A prospective randomized comparison of conventional mechanical ventilation and early high frequency oscillatory ventilation in extremely premature newborns with respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Medicine 1999;25(1):68‐75. [PUBMED: 10051081]

Rettwitz‐Volk 1998 {published and unpublished data}

Rettwitz‐Volk W, Veldman A, Roth B, Vierzig A, Kachel W, Varnholt V, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicentre trial of high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation compared with conventional ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome receiving surfactant treatment. Journal of Pediatrics 1998;132(2):249‐54. [PUBMED: 9506636]

Salvo 2012 {published data only}

Salvo V, Zimmermann LJ, Gavilanes AW, Barberi I, Ricotti A, Abella R, et al. First intention high‐frequency oscillatory and conventional mechanical ventilation in premature infants without antenatal glucocorticoid prophylaxis. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 2012;13(1):72‐9. [PUBMED: 21499177]

Schreiber 2003 {published and unpublished data}

Mestan KK, Marks JD, Hecox K, Huo D, Schreiber MD. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of premature infants treated with inhaled nitric oxide. New England Journal of Medicine 2005;353(1):23‐32. [PUBMED: 16000353]
Schreiber MD, Gin‐Mestan K, Marks JD, Hou D, Lee L, Srisuparp P. Inhaled nitric oxide in premature infants with respiratory distress. New England Journal of Medicine 2003;349(22):2099‐107. [PUBMED: 14645637]
Schreiber MD, Gin‐Mestan K, Srisuparp P, Marks J. Inhaled nitric oxide decreases BPD, death and IVH/PVL in premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatric Research 2003;53:31.

Sun 2014 {published data only}

Sun H, Cheng R, Kang W, Xiong H, Zhou C, Zhang Y, et al. High‐frequency oscillatory ventilation versus synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation plus pressure support in preterm infants with severe respiratory distress syndrome. Respiratory Care 2014;59(2):159‐69. [PUBMED: 23764865]

Thome 1998 {published and unpublished data}

Thome U, Kossel H, Lipowsky G, Porz F, Furste H, Genzel‐Boroviczeny O, et al. HFOV Study Group. [Hochfrequenzoszillationsbeatmung (HFOV) im Vergleich mit hochfrequenter intermittierender positiver Druckbeatmung (IPPV) als Ersttherapie bei Fruhgeborenen (FG) mit Atemnotsyndrom. Eine propektive randomisierte multizentrische Studie]. Proceedings of the German‐Austrian Society for Neonatology and Pediatric Critical Care, Munster. October 1997.
Thome U, Kossel H, Lipowsky G, Porz F, Furste H, Genzel‐Boroviczeny O, et al. HFOV Study Group. High frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) compared with high rate intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) as first line therapy for premature infants with respiratory insufficiency. A prospective randomized multicenter trial. Pediatric Research 1998;43:300A.
Thome U, Kossel H, Lipowsky G, Porz F, Furste HO, Genzel‐Boroviczeny O, et al. Randomized comparison of high‐frequency ventilation with high‐rate intermittent positive pressure ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory failure. Journal of Pediatrics 1999;135(1):39‐46. [PUBMED: 10393602]

Van Reempts 2003 {published data only}

Van Reempts P, Borstlap C, Laroche S, Van der Auwer JC. Early use of high frequency ventilation in the premature neonate. Eurpean Journal of Pediatrics 2003;162(4):219‐26. [PUBMED: 12647193]
Van Reempts P, Borstlap K, Laroche S. Randomised controlled trial comparing high frequency ventilation versus conventional ventilation in preterm infants. Pediatric Research 2000;47:379A.

Vento 2005 {published data only}

Vento G, Matassa PG, Ameglio F, Capoluongo E, Zecca E, Martelli M, et al. HFOV improves lung mechanics and late pulmonary outcome in extremely low gestational age infants (<30 wks) with respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatric Research 2002;51:393A.
Vento G, Matassa PG, Ameglio F, Capoluongo E, Zecca E, Tortorolo L, et al. HFOV in premature neonates: effects on pulmonary mechanics and epithelial lining fluid cytokines. A randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Medicine 2005;31(3):463‐70. [PUBMED: 15717206]

Cambonie 2003 {published data only}

Cambonie G, Guillaumont S, Luc F, Vergnes C, Milesi C, Voisin M. Haemodynamic features during high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation in preterms. Acta Paediatrica 2003;92(9):1068‐73. [PUBMED: 14599072]

Froese 1987 {published data only}

Froese AB, Butler PO, Fletcher WA, Byford LJ. High‐frequency oscillatory ventilation in premature infants with respiratory failure: a preliminary report. Anesthesia and Analgesia 1987;66(9):814‐24. [PUBMED: 3304021]

HiFO 1993 {published data only}

HiFO study group. Randomised study of high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation in infants with severe respiratory distress syndrome. Journal of Pediatrics 1993;122(4):609‐19. [PUBMED: 8463913]

Iscan 2014 {published data only}

Iscan B, Duman N, Kumral A, Ozkan H. Crossover trial comparing high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation versus volume guarantee plus high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation: a preliminary report. Archives Diseases of Childhood 2014;99(Suppl 2):A497‐8. [DOI: 10.1136/archdischild‐2014‐307384.1380]

Lombet 1996 {published data only}

Lombet J, Claris O, Debauche C, Putet G, Rigo J, Verellen G, et al. High frequency oscillation (HFO) versus conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Pediatric Research 1996;40:540. [DOI: 10.1203/00006450‐199609000‐00172]

Nazarchuk 2010 {published data only}

Nazarchuk O, Bertsun K, Dmytriiev D, Palamarchuk Y, Katilov O. Early high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation versus synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation in very low birth weight infants with omphalocoele. Early Human Development 2010;86:S67‐8.

Pardou 1993 {published data only}

Pardou A, Vermeylen D, Muller MF, Detemmerman D. High‐frequency ventilation and conventional mechanical ventilation in newborn babies with respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective, randomized trial. Critical Care Medicine 1993;19(7):406‐10. [PUBMED: 8270721]

Prashanth 2012 {published data only}

Prashanth GP, Malik GK, Singh SN. Elective high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation in preterm neonates: a preliminary investigation in a developing country. Paediatrics and International Child Health 2012;32(2):102‐6. [PUBMED: 22595219]

Ramanathan 1995 {published data only}

Ramanathan R, Ruiz I, Tantivit P, Cayabyab R, deLemos R. High frequency oscillatory ventilation compared to conventional mechanical ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Pediatric Research 1995;37:347A.

Singh 2012 {published data only}

Singh SN, Malik GK, Prashanth GP, Singh A, Kumar M. High frequency oscillatory ventilation versus synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation in preterm neonates with hyaline membrane disease: a randomized controlled trial. Indian Pediatrics 2012;49(5):405‐8. [PUBMED: 22700666]

Elazeez 2010 {published data only}

Shabaan, AEA, Elsallab SM, Bassiouny MR, Abd‐Elhady HE. Randomized trial of high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) versus conventional ventilation (CV): effect on cerebral hemodynamics in preterm infants. Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting; 2010 May 1‐4; Vancouver, Canada. 2010:E‐PAS20103748.547.

Sarafidis 2011 {published data only}

Sarafidis K, Stathopoulou T, Agakidou E, Taparkou A, Soubasi V, Diamanti E, et al. Comparable effect of conventional ventilation versus early high‐frequency oscillation on serum CC16 and IL‐6 levels in preterm neonates. Journal of Perinatology 2011;31(2):104‐11. [PUBMED: 20671716]

Texas Infant Star {unpublished data only}

Talbert AL. Texas Infant Star. Randomization to 3 modes of ventilation: conventional, high frequency oscillation, and combination (HFOV + 2 ‐ 5 bpm CV). Contact: Dr Anthony L Talbert, Texas Tech University School of Medicine, Odessa, Texas, USA Phone +1 915 335 5270.

Bancalari 1992

Bancalari E, Sinclair JC. Mechanical ventilation. In: Sinclair JC, Bracken MB editor(s). Effective Care of the Newborn Infant. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992:200‐20.

Bhuta 2003

Bhuta T, Henderson‐Smart DJ. Elective high frequency jet ventilation versus conventional ventilation in preterm infants mechanically ventilated for RDS. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000328]

Bollen 2003

Bollen CW, Uiterwaal CS, van Vught AJ. Cumulative meta‐analysis of high‐frequency versus conventional ventilation in premature neonates. American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 2003;168(10):1150‐5. [PUBMED: 14607823]

Bryan 1991

Bryan AC, Froese AB. Reflections on the HIFI trial. Pediatrics 1991;87(4):565‐7. [PUBMED: 2011435]

Clark 2000

Clark RH, Slutsky AS, Gerstmann DR. Lung protective strategies of ventilation in the neonate: what are they?. Pediatrics 2000;105(1 Pt 1):112‐4. [PUBMED: 10617711]

Cools 2010

Cools F, Askie LM, Offringa M, Asselin JM, Calvert SA, Courtney SE, et al. PreVILIG collaboration. Elective high‐frequency oscillatory versus conventional ventilation in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of individual patients' data. Lancet 2010;375(9731):2082‐91. [PUBMED: 20552718]

De Jaegere 2006

De Jaegere A, van Veenendaal MB, Michiels A, van Kaam AH. Lung recruitment using oxygenation during open lung high‐frequency ventilation in preterm infants. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2006;174(6):639‐45. [PUBMED: 16763218]

de Lemos 1987

de Lemos RA, Coalson JS, Gerstmann DR, et al. Ventilatory management of infant baboons with hyaline membrane disease; the use of high frequency ventilation. Pediatric Research 1987;21(6):594‐602. [PUBMED: 3299231]

DeJaegere 2006

De Jaegere A, van Veenendaal MB, Michiels A, van Kaam AH. Lung recruitment using oxygenation during open lung high‐frequency ventilation in preterm infants. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2006;174(6):639‐45. [PUBMED: 16763218]

Ehrenkrantz 1992

Ehrenkranz RA, Mercurio MR. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia. In: Sinclair JC, Bracken MB editor(s). Effective Care of theNewborn Infant. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992:399‐424.

Greenough 2008

Greenough A, Milner AD, Dimitriou G. Synchronised mechanical ventilation in neonates. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000456.pub3]

Halliday 2003

Halliday H, Ehrenkranz R. Moderately early (7‐14 days) postnatal corticosteroids for preventing chronic lung disease in preterm infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001144]

Henderson‐Smart 2005

Henderson‐Smart DJ, Bhuta T. Rescue high frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000438]

Jobe 2000

Jobe AH, Ikegami M. Lung development and function in preterm infants in the surfactant treatment era. Annual Review of Physiology 2000;62:825‐46. [PUBMED: 10845113]

Jouvet 1997

Jouvet P, Hubert P, Isabey D, Oinquier D, Dahan E, et al. Assessment of high‐frequency neonatal ventilator performances. Intensive Care Medicine 1997;23(2):208‐13. [PUBMED: 9069008]

Kinsella 1991

Kinsella JP, Gerstmann DR, Clark RH, Null DM, Morrow WR, Taylor AF, et al. High frequency oscillatory ventilation versus intermittent mandatory ventilation: early hemodynamic effects in the premature baboon with hyaline membrane disease. Pediatric Research 1991;29(2):160‐6. [PUBMED: 2014152]

Laubscher 1996

Laubscher B, van Melle G, Fawer CL, Sekarski N, Calame A. Haemodynamic changes during high frequency oscillation for respiratory distress syndrome. Archives of Diseases in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 1996;74(3):F172‐6. [PUBMED: 8777679]

McCulloch 1988

McCulloch PR, Forkert PG, Froese AB. Lung volume maintenance prevents lung injury during high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation in surfactant‐deficient rabbits. American Review of Respiratory Disease 1988;137(5):1185‐92. [PUBMED: 3195813 ]

Meredith 1989

Meredith KS, deLemos RA, Coalson JJ, King RJ, Gerstmann DR, Kumar R, et al. Role of lung injury in the pathogenesis of hyaline membrane disease in premature baboons. Journal of Applied Pysiology 1989;66(5):2150‐8. [PUBMED: 2745284]

Northway 1992

Northway WH. An introduction to bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Clinics in Perinatology 1992;19(3):489‐95. [PUBMED: 1526068]

Petrucci 2007

Petrucci N, Iacovelli W. Lung protective ventilation strategy for the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003844.pub3]

Pillow 1999

Pillow JJ, Neil H, Wilkinson MH, Ramsden CA. Effect of I/E ratio on mean alveolar pressure during high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation. Journal of Applied Physiology 1999;87(1):407‐14. [PUBMED: 10409602]

Pillow 2001

Pillow JJ, Wilkinson MH, Neil HL, Ramsden CA. In vitro performance characteristics of high‐frequency oscillatory ventilators. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2001;164(6):1019‐24. [PUBMED: 11587990]

Roberts 2006

Roberts D, Dalziel S. Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858]

Thome 2005

Thome UH, Carlo WA, Pohlandt F. Ventilation strategies and outcome in randomized trials of high frequency ventilation. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2005;90(6):F466‐73. [PUBMED: 15941826]

Truog 1984

Truog WE, Standaert TA, Murphy JH, Woodrum DE, Hodson WA. Effect of prolonged high frequency oscillatory ventilation in premature primates with experimental hyaline membrane disease. American Review of Respiratory Disease 1984;130(1):76‐80. [PUBMED: 6564845]

Woodgate 2006

Woodgate PG, Davies WW. Permissive hypercapnia for the prevention of morbidity and mortality in mechanically ventilated newborn infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002061]

Henderson‐Smart 1999

Henderson‐Smart DJ, Bhuta T, Cools F, Offringa M. Elective high frequency oscillatory ventilation vs conventional ventilation for acute pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1999, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000104.pub2]

Henderson‐Smart 2001

Henderson‐Smart DJ, Bhuta T, Cools F, Offringa M. Elective high frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for acute pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000104.pub2]

Henderson‐Smart 2003

Henderson‐Smart DJ, Bhuta T, Cools F, Offringa M. Elective high frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for acute pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000104.pub2]

Henderson‐Smart 2007

Henderson‐Smart DJ, Cools F, Bhuta T, Offringa M. Elective high frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for acute pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000104.pub2]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by year of study]

HIFI 1989

Methods

Multicentre (11) randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ birth weight 750 to 2000 g

‐ respiratory failure in first 24 hrs of life; those at 1250 to 2000 g only eligible if severe RDS

‐ receiving < 12 hrs of mechanical ventilation

Exclusion criteria: meconium aspiration; neuromuscular disease; hydrops fetalis; major congenital malformations; hypoplastic lungs

Stratification: by centre; by birth weight (from 750 to 1500 g in 250 g strata, 1501 to 2000 g in single stratum)

673 infants enrolled (12 withdrawals, died or consent withdrawn before treated)

Mean gestational age: 28.4 ± 2.3 wk in HFOV, 28.3 ± 2.2 in CV

Mean birth weight: 1092 ± 294 g in HFOV, 1087 ± 281 g in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: not reported

Mean age at randomisation: 6.1 ± 4.6 hrs in HFOV, 5.8 ± 4.0 hrs in CV

Interventions

HFOV: OSC using Hummingbird. Settings: initial MAP same or below MAP on CV, 15 Hz

HVS: no. Hypoxaemia first treated by increasing FiO2, and thereafter by increasing MAP

CV: IMV. Settings: rate 20 to 40/min, IT 0.3 to 1.0 sec, PIP 20 to 25 cmH2O, PEEP 2 to 5 cm H2O.

LPS: no.

Target PCO2: 35 to 60 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: until extubation, unless infant meets failure criteria

Cross‐over: if infants meet failure criteria (failure to oxygenate or ventilate adequately with assigned ventilator)

Outcomes

Chronic lung disease (CLD) = oxygen therapy at 28 days and abnormal chest x‐ray; mortality at 28 days; pulmonary air leak (± pneumothorax); all IVH; grade 3 and 4 IVH; PVL; mechanical ventilation at 28 days; failure of assigned treatment (PaO2 < 45 mmHg or PaCO2 > 65 mmHg; NEC; use of vasopressors; pulmonary function at 9 months (432, 82% of survivors); neurodevelopmental outcome at 16 to 24 months (386, 74% of survivors)

Notes

Surfactant: not used (not available)

Cross‐over: 26% in HFOV, 17% in CV

Postnatal corticosteroids: 12% in HFOV, 9% in CV

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "computer generated randomisation scheme"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No information on randomisation procedure

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). No information on blinding for other outcomes

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Complete follow‐up for primary outcome (CLD, 98.3%); completeness of follow‐up for longer‐term outcomes: 74% to 82%

Clark 1992

Methods

Single centre randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ gestational age < 35 weeks

‐ birth weight < 1751 g

‐ requiring mechanical ventilation

‐ younger than 24 hours

Exclusion criteria: positive blood culture; lethal congenital anomaly; hydrops fetalis; congenital diagrammatic hernia

Stratification: by birth weight: < 1001 versus 1001 to 1750 g; by age: 0 to 12 versus 12 to 24 hrs

152 infants eligible, 98 (63%) enrolled: 78% inborn; RDS chest x‐ray score at entry HFOV > CV; 15 post‐randomisation exclusions in publication ‐ data retrieved from author

Mean gestational age: 28 ± 3 wk in HFOV and in CV

Mean birth weight: 1080 ± 310 g in HFOV, 1080 ± 340 g in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: 12% in HFOV and 13% in CV

Mean age at randomisation: 7 hrs in HFOV, 9 hrs in CV

Interventions

HFOV: OSC using Sensormedics 3100. Settings: MAP 1 to 2 cm H2O higher than CV, 10 Hz, I:E ratio 1:2

HVS: yes; increase MAP to optimise oxygenation, wean FiO2 first, once FiO2 < 0.6 priority to wean MAP
CV: time‐cycled, pressure‐limited ventilation; no synchronisation. Settings: IT 0.3 to 0.6 sec, rate 25 to 40/min, PEEP 4 to 6 cm H2O, PIP 20 to 27 cm H2O

LPS: no

Target PCO2: 35 to 55 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: HFOV until extubation

Cross‐over: balanced crossover design, offering patients failing to respond to the assigned mode a trial of the alternative mode. Failure criteria: failure to maintain adequate oxygenation (PO2 > 50 mmHg) or ventilation (PCO2 > 60 mmHg) for 3 hrs

Outcomes

Chronic lung disease (CLD) = oxygen therapy at 30 days + abnormal chest x‐ray; oxygen therapy at 36 weeks postmenstrual age; failure of assigned treatment to maintain PaO2 > 50 mmHg or PaCO2 < 60 mmHg or in CV group development of pulmonary air leak; pulmonary air leak (± pneumothorax); all IVH; grades 3 or 4 IVH; mortality at 30 days

Notes

Surfactant: no (not available)

Cross‐over: 9% in HFOV, 35% in CV

Postnatal corticosteroids: not reported

Additional arm to the trial consisted of HFOV for 72 hrs then switch to CV (not analysed here)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "random cards"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "blind draw"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). No information on outcomes such as brain ultrasound

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Complete follow‐up (after additional data from author)

Ogawa 1993

Methods

Multicentre (9) randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ birth weight 750 to 2000 g

‐ requiring mechanical ventilation soon after birth

Exclusion criteria: if > 12 hrs old; presence of IVH within 1 hr after birth for inborns and within 6 hrs for transferred babies

Stratification: by birth weight (750 to 1249 g, 1250 to 1999 g)

92 infants enrolled and analysed

Mean gestational age: 29 ± 2.3 wk in HFOV, 29 ± 2.1 in CV

Mean birth weight: 1243 ± 322 g in HFOV, 1250 ± 318 g in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: not reported

Mean age at randomisation: 2.0 ± 1.6 hrs in HFOV, 1.7 ± 1.5 hrs in CV

Interventions

HFOV: OSC using Hummingbird. Settings: high initial MAP, 15 Hz

HVS: yes. Alveolar recruitment by manual bagging and use of high MAP. Target FiO2 not reported
CV: pressure‐limited time‐cycled, method not stated, using Bear Cub or Sechrist

Target PCO2: 35 to 50 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: not reported

Cross‐over: allowed if infant meets failure criteria (same as in HIFI trial)

Outcomes

Primary outcome all IVH and grade 3 or 4 IVH; chronic lung disease (CLD) = oxygen therapy at 28 days and abnormal chest x‐ray; mortality at 28 days; failure of assigned treatment (as for HIFI 1989); pulmonary air leak; PVL; mechanical ventilation at 28 days; duration of mechanical ventilation; neurodevelopmental outcome at 12 months (all survivors)

Notes

Surfactant: bovine surfactant given in case of "clinical diagnosis of RDS"; 78% of infants received surfactant in both groups

Cross‐over: 9% in HFOV, 2% in CV

Postnatal corticosteroids: not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "eligible for randomisation"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "randomisation with opaque envelopes"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). No information on blinding of assessment of head ultrasound or chest x‐ray

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Complete follow‐up for primary outcome and for long‐term follow‐up

Gerstmann 1996

Methods

Multicentre (3) randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ gestational age < 36 wk

‐ requiring mechanical ventilation shortly after birth

‐ at least moderate respiratory insufficiency (Pa/AO2 < 0.5; poor ventilation)

Exclusion criteria: patients > 12 hrs old; severe congenital defects; pre‐existing air leak

Stratification: by birth weight (≤ 1000 g, >1000 g); by age at randomisation (≤ 4 hrs, > 4hrs)

125 infants enrolled

Mean gestational age: 30.8 ± 2.2 wk in HFOV, 30.1 ± 2.7 wk in CV

Mean birth weight: 1560 ± 460 g in HFOV, 1460 ± 470 in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: 30% in HFOV, 18% in CV

Mean age at randomisation: mean 2.9 hrs (range 2.4 to 3.3) in HFOV, mean 2.0 hrs (range 1.4 to 3.0) in CV

Interventions

HFOV: OSC using Sensormedics 3100(A). Settings: initial MAP 1 to 2 cm H2O > with CV, I:E ratio 0.33, 10 to 15 Hz

HVS: yes. Increase MAP to improve oxygenation with target FiO2 < 0.30

CV: IMV using Sechrist. Synchronisation: no. Settings: IT 0.35 to 0.55 sec, rate < 60/min, PEEP 3 to 7 cm H2O, PIP up to 30 cm H2O if < 1 kg and up to 35 cm H2O if > 1 kg

LPS: no

Target PCO2: 35 to 45 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: HFOV until extubation or switched to CV if insufficient respiratory drive

Cross‐over: if infants meet failure criteria (insufficient oxygenation or ventilation for > 2 hrs; persistent haemodynamic problems; destabilizing problem of air leak; requiring hand ventilation)

Outcomes

Chronic lung disease (CLD) = oxygen therapy at 30 days and abnormal chest x‐ray; oxygen at discharge (mean age 37 weeks PMA); mortality at 30 days; failure of assigned treatment (PaO2 < 50 or PaCO2 > 60 mmHg for > 2 hrs, or excessive pressures of IPPV); pulmonary air leak; all IVH; grade 3 or 4 IVH; PVL; mechanical ventilation at 28 days; NEC; use of vasopressors; PDA (treated); ROP; BAER; hospital cost

Notes

Surfactant: all infants received at least one dose of bovine surfactant after enrolment in the trial. Infants in the HFOV group received significantly fewer surfactant doses than infants in the CV group

Cross‐over: 2% in HFOV, 15% in CV

Postnatal corticosteroids: not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "Randomisation was by blind card draw from separate sets of..."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information regarding concealment procedures

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). Neurodevelopmental assessment was blinded

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Complete follow‐up for primary outcome. Long‐term follow‐up of infants of 1 centre: 87% completeness of follow‐up

Rettwitz‐Volk 1998

Methods

Multicentre (3) randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ birth weight 750 to 1500 g

‐ respiratory distress syndrome

Exclusion criteria: congenital anomalies; hydrops fetalis

Stratification: by birth weight (750 to 1000 g, 1001 to 1500 g)

96 infants enrolled and analysed

Mean gestational age: 28.5 ± 0.9 wk in HFOV, 28.4 ± 0.95 wk in CV

Mean birth weight: 1107 ± 112 g in HFOV, 1111 ± 116 g in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: 24% in HFOV, 18% in CV

Mean age at randomisation: 1.16 ± 0.50 hrs in HFOV, 0.66 ± 0.33 hrs in CV

Interventions

HFOV: OSC using Stephan SHF 3000 piston oscillator. Settings: initial MAP and amplitude to show good chest movements, 15 to 20 Hz, I:E ratio 1:1

HVS: no. Weaning of MAP first

CV: IMV using Stephan HF 300 or Dräger Babylog 8000. Synchronisation: not reported. Settings: PIP to show good chest expansion, IT 0.25 to 0.45 sec, I:E at least = 1:2, PEEP 3 to 4 cm H2O

LPS: no

Target PCO2: 35 to 48 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: until extubation or allowed switched to CV if FiO2 < 0.30 and MAP 3 to 4 cm H2O

Cross‐over: allowed if infant meets failure criteria (inadequate oxygenation of ventilation with assigned mode; for patients on CV: development of PIE)

Outcomes

Mortality before discharge, CLD (O2 at 37 weeks PMA), failure of assigned treatment (PaO2 < 45 mmHg or PaCO2 > 60 mmHg), pulmonary ALS ± pneumothorax, IVH, PVL

Notes

Surfactant: bovine surfactant (Survanta) was administered after randomisation when chest x‐ray showed RDS grade II and FiO2 > 0.60 was necessary to achieve PO2 > 50 mmHg

Cross‐over: 17% in HFOV, 18% in CV

Postnatal corticosteroids: 43% in HFOV, 60% in CV (all patients still on oxygen therapy at 7 days of age received a 21 day course of dexamethasone)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "balanced block randomization scheme"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No information on procedures to conceal allocation

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). No information on assessment of head ultrasound or chest x‐ray

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Complete follow‐up for primary endpoint

Thome 1998

Methods

Multicentre (6) randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ inborn

‐ gestational age 24 to 29 wk

‐ requiring mechanical ventilation within 6 hrs of birth

Exclusion criteria: major congenital or chromosomal anomalies, hydrops fetalis

Stratification: by centre; by gestational age (24 to 25 wk, 26 to 27 wk, 28 to 29 wk)

289 infants enrolled; 4 infants excluded because of congenital malformation and 1 infant excluded because of pneumothorax before randomisation; 284 infants analysed

Median (range) gestational age: 27.0 wk (23.4 to 29.9 wk) in HFOV, 27.3 wk (24.0 to 29.9 wk) in CV

Median (range) birth weight: 888 g (420 to 1830 g) in HFOV, 870 g (370 to 1395 g) in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: 81% in HFOV, 86% in CV

Median (range) age at intubation: 12 minutes (0 to 360) both in HFOV and in CV

Median (range) duration of positive pressure ventilation before randomisation: 28 minutes (0 to 90) in HFOV, 0 minutes (0 to 90) in CV

Interventions

HFOV: HFFI using Infant Star ventilator (software version 83). Settings: initial MAP 1 to 2 cm H2O higher than with CV or 10 to 12 cm H2O if HFV started immediately, 10 Hz

HVS: yes. Stepwise increase of MAP until target FiO2 < 0.30 is reached. Mild sustained inflations (MAP +5 cm H2O during 15 sec) after tracheal suctioning
CV: IPPV time‐cycled pressure‐limited ventilation using various ventilators (Dräger Babylog 8000, Stephan HF300, Infant Star, Sechrist IV‐100B). Settings: initial rates 60 to 80/min, aimed at lower PIP and PEEP ≥ 3 cm H2O

LPS: yes

Target PCO2: 40 to 60 mmHg, up to 70 mmHg from day 7

Duration of assigned treatment: until extubation or for 10 days

Cross‐over: in first 10 days allowed if infant meets failure criteria (air leak, oxygenation index as defined in primary outcome), decision left to the attending physician

Outcomes

"Treatment failure" (ALS < 10 days, oxygenation index > 35 , 40 or 45 in the 3 gestation strata, CLD at 36 weeks or death before discharge), CLD = oxygen or ventilatory support at 36 weeks, ALS = PIE or gross air leaks; IVH; PVL; ROP

Notes

Surfactant: if FiO2 was > 0.30 in HFOV group, or > 0.40 in CV group. Bovine or porcine surfactant given to 68% of HFOV and 71% of CV

Cross‐over: not reported

Postnatal corticosteroids: 39% of HFOV, 41% of CV

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "randomly assigned"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "consecutively numbered computer‐printed opaque envelopes"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). Assessment of chest x‐ray was blinded, but not reported for head ultrasound

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Complete follow‐up (98.3%)

Plavka 1999

Methods

Single centre randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ birth weight 500 to 1500 g

‐ gestational age < 31 wk

‐ respiratory insufficiency

Exclusion criteria: small for gestational age infants; major congenital anomalies or neuromuscular disease; ventilated for CNS disorder or circulatory reason

Stratification: no

43 infants enrolled and analysed

Mean gestational age:

Mean birth weight:

Antenatal corticosteroids:

Mean age at randomisation: selective intubation in the delivery room with immediate randomisation and transfer to the NICU to start assigned ventilation mode. Initiation of ventilation within 20 minutes after birth

Interventions

HFOV: OSC using Sensormedics 3100A. Settings: MAP stepwise increased, 15 Hz, I:E ratio 1:2

HVS: yes. MAP stepwise increased to reach optimal lung inflation; target FiO2 not reported

CV: (S)IMV time‐cycled, pressure‐limited using Bearcub 2100 or Infant Star. Synchronisation: not in all patients. Settings: rate 30 to 60/min, IT 0.3 to 0.5 sec, PEEP 3 to 5 cm H2O, PIP to reach adequate chest rise

LPS: probably not

Target PCO2: not specified ("normocapnia")

Duration of assigned treatment: HFOV until extubation

Cross‐over: from HFOV to CV if inadequate oxygenation or ventilation despite optimum lung inflation (confirmed by chest x‐ray) and arterial normotension; from CV to HFOV if inadequate oxygenation or ventilation with MAP ≥ 15 cm H2O, PIP ≥ 35 cm H2O and FiO2 ≥ 80%

Outcomes

Mortality at 30 days and at 36 weeks PMA, any air leak, pneumothorax, CLD 30 days and 36 weeks PMA, any IVH and severe grade 3 or 4 IVH, PVL, ROP > grade 2

Notes

Surfactant: administered within first 3 hrs of life if criteria for surfactant treatment (not reported) are fulfilled; 42% of infants in HFOV group, and 94% of infants in CV group received surfactant

Cross‐over: 0% in HFOV, 10% in CV

Postnatal corticosteroids: median (range) cumulative dose of dexamethasone 1.6 mg/kg (0 to 11.3) in HFOV, 2.75 mg/kg (0 to 17.5) in CV
Author provided additional data on rates of IVH and pulmonary air leaks in excluded early deaths

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "table of random numbers"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "sealed envelopes"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). Chest x‐rays reviewed by blinded observers. No information on assessment of head ultrasound

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Complete follow‐up; 2 excluded (1 CNS abnormality in HFOV group and 1 congenital heart disease in CV)

Durand 2001

Methods

Multicentre (7) randomised controlled pilot study

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ birth weight 501 to 1200 g

‐ mechanically ventilated within 4 hrs after birth

‐ received 1 dose of surfactant

‐ FiO2 ≥ 0.25

‐ expected to need ventilation > 24 hrs

Exclusion criteria: growth not appropriate for gestational age; 5 minute Apgar < 3; base deficit > 14; severe hypotension

Stratification: by weight (501 to 800 g, 801 to 1200 g), by antenatal steroids

48 infants enrolled

Mean gestational age: 25.9 ± 2.1 in HFOV, 26.1 ± 1.7 in CV

Mean birth weight: 823 ± 215 g in HFOV, 856 ± 206 in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: 42% in HFOV, 50% in CV

Mean age at randomisation: 2.8 ± 1.2 hrs in HFOV, 2.4 ± 1.0 in CV

Interventions

HFOV: OSC using Sensormedics 3100A. Settings: initial MAP 2 cm H2O higher than with CV, 15 Hz, I/T 0.33

HVS: yes. Increase MAP to optimise oxygenation with target FiO2 < 0.40

CV: SIMV using Dräger Babylog, Bearcub, VIP Bird. Settings: Rate < 60/min, PEEP 4 to 6 cm H2O, Ti 0.25 to 0.35 sec, target Vt 5 to 6 ml/kg

LPS: yes.

Target PCO2: 40 to 55 mmHg (45 to 65 mmHg for infants with CLD)

Duration assigned treatment: until death or extubation or development of CLD

Cross‐over: no

Outcomes

Death by 36 weeks, CLD at 36 weeks in survivors, IVH grades 3 or 4, PVL, mean number of doses of surfactant

Notes

Surfactant: all infants received Survanta before enrolment

Cross‐over: 8% in HFOV, 29% in CV

Postnatal corticosteroids: 42% in HFOV, 62% in CV

Pilot study for Courtney 2003 ‐ subjects not include in later study

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "Randomly assigned"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No information on randomisation procedure

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). No information on blinding of other outcomes

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Complete follow‐up ‐ 2 infants withdrawn from HFOV arm at parental request

Moriette 2001

Methods

Multicentre (10) randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ gestational age 24 to 29 wk

‐ requiring mechanical ventilation before 6 hrs of life

‐ PaO2/FiO2 < 200

‐ chest x‐ray compatible with RDS

Exclusion criteria: IVH grade 3 or 4; pre‐existing pneumothorax; ROM before 24 wk gestational age; severe congenital malformation or hydrops fetalis

Stratification: by centre; by gestational age (24 to 27 wk, 28 to 29 wk)

292 infants randomised; 7 inclusion errors, 8 withdrawals of consent

273 infants analysed

Mean gestational age: 27.5 ± 1.4 wk in HFOV, 27.6 ± 1.5 wk in CV

Mean birth weight: 976 ± 219 g in HFOV, 997 ± 245 g in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: 52% in HFOV, 55% in CV

Mean age at randomisation: 2.42 ± 1.58 hrs in HFOV, 2.37 ± 1.97 hrs in CV

Interventions

HFOV: OSC using OHF1 piston oscillator (Dufour, France). Settings: initial MAP 2 cm H2O > than on CV, I:E ratio 1:1, 15 Hz, high volume strategy (higher mean airway pressure, sighs)

HVS: yes. Increase MAP to optimise oxygenation; use of 'sighs'; target FiO2 < 0.40

CV: SIMV using Dräger babylog 8000. Synchronisation: yes. Settings: TI < 0.45 sec, PEEP 4 to 5 cm H2O, minimal PIP to achieve target PCO2

LPS: probably yes.

Target PCO2: 40 to 50 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: 10 days

Cross‐over: allowed during first 10 days if infant meets failure criteria (criteria for ventilatory failure, criteria for radiographic failure such as air leak)

Outcomes

Death (neonatal and before discharge)
Use of > 1 dose of surfactant
Pulmonary air leak (PIE and pneumothorax)
ROP (? grade)
CLD (oxygen at 28 days and oxygen at 36 weeks
Duration of IPPV, O2 therapy, hospitalisation
Grade 3/4 IVH (7 to 10 day ultrasound (U/S))
PVL (28 day U/S)

Notes

Surfactant: all infants received first dose of surfactant (Curosurf, 200 mg/kg) after randomisation

Cross‐over: 15% in CV, 29% in CV

Postnatal corticosteroids: 54% in HFOV, 52% in CV

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "computer‐generated randomization"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "using sealed envelopes"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). Assessment of head ultrasound and chest x‐rays was blinded

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Complete follow‐up: yes (7% loss)

Johnson 2002

Methods

Multicentre (25) randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ gestational age 23 to 28 wk

‐ inborn

‐ requiring mechanical ventilation from birth

Exclusion criteria: transfer to another hospital shortly after birth; congenital malformations

Stratification: by centre; by gestational age (23 to 25 wk, 26 to 28 wk)

870 infants randomised; 66 infants were ineligible and excluded; 7 infants withdrawn (5 deemed ineligible, 2 at parent's request. 797 infants included in analyses

Mean gestational age: 26.5 wk for total study population

Mean birth weight: 853 ± 185 g for total study population

Antenatal corticosteroids: 91% in HFOV, 92% in CV

Mean age at randomisation: all infants were randomised within the first 60 minutes after birth

Interventions

HFOV: mix of OSC using SLE2 2000 (187 infants) or Sensormedics 3100A (38 infants), and HFFI using Dräger Babylog 8000 (165 infants). Settings: 10 Hz, MAP 6 to 8 cm H2O; I:E 1:1 or 1:2, FiO2 weaned before MAP (high volume strategy)

HVS: yes. Increase MAP until FiO2 < 0.30
CV: (S)IMV using different ventilators: SLE 2000 (193 infants), Drager Babylog 8000 (192 infants), other ventilators (12 infants). Settings: IT 0.4 sec, initial rate 60/min

LPS: probably yes

Target PCO2: 34 to 53 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: after 120 hrs the clinician could choose the ventilation mode

Cross‐over: if infants meet failure criteria (failure to achieve adequate oxygenation or ventilation during > 1 hr)

Outcomes

Death by 36 weeks PMA, chronic lung disease at 36 weeks PMA (oxygen therapy or other assisted ventilation), failure of assigned treatment, IVH, PVL, pulmonary air leak (not defined), ROP grade 2 or more, NEC, length of hospital stay

Notes

Surfactant: protocol recommended surfactant treatment as soon as possible after birth; 97% of HFOV group and 99% of CV group received surfactant

Cross‐over: 10% in HFOV, 10% in CV

Postnatal corticosteroids: 31% in HFOV, 28% in CV

Follow‐up of pulmonary function: Thomas 2004 and Zivanovic 2014

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "infants were randomly assigned"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No information on randomisation procedure

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). Assessment of brain ultrasound was blinded

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Complete follow‐up for primary outcome

Courtney 2002

Methods

Multicentre (26) randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ birth weight 601 to 1200 g

‐ appropriate growth for gestational age

‐ received 1 dose of surfactant

‐ requiring mechanical ventilation with FiO2 ≥ 0.25 and MAP ≥ 6 cm H2O

‐ less than 4 hours old

‐ expected to require ventilation for > 24 hrs

Exclusion criteria: 5 minute Apgar < 3; base deficit ≥ 15; severe hypotension; chromosomal or congenital anomalies, neuromuscular disease

Stratification: by centre; by birth weight (601 to 700 g, 701 to 800 g, 801 to 1000 g, 1001 to 1200 g); by antenatal steroids

498 infants enrolled

Mean gestational age: 26.0 ± 1.6 wk in HFOV, 26.1 ± 1.6 in CV

Mean birth weight: 859 ± 161 in HFOV, 848 ± 160 in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: 74% in HFOV, 71% in CV

Mean age at randomisation: 2.7 hrs in both groups

Interventions

HFOV: OSC using SensorMedics 3100A. Settings: initial MAP 2 cm H2O > CV, 10 to 15 Hz, IT 0.33 (I:E ratio 1:2)

HVS: yes; increase MAP to optimise oxygenation in order to keep FiO2 ≤ 0.40
CV: SIMV using VIP Bird, Dräger Babylog 800, Bear Cub with volume monitor or Bear Cub 750vs. Setting: Vt 4 to 7 ml/kg, IT 0.25 to 0.40 sec, rate < 60/min

LPS: yes

PaCO2 target: 45 to 60 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: HFOV until extubation or for 28 days

Crossover: if infants met "clear exit criteria". Analysis according to intention‐to‐treat

Outcomes

Death by 36 weeks PMA, chronic lung disease at 36 weeks PMA (oxygen therapy or other assisted ventilation), IVH, PVL, pneumothorax, ROP grade 2 or more, NEC, duration of IPPV

Notes

Surfactant: first dose before study entry; subsequent doses if FiO2 ≥ 0.30

Prophylactic indomethacin

Cross‐over: 10% in HFOV, 19% in CV

Postnatal corticosteroids: 46% in HFOV, 55% in CV

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "randomly assigned"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No information on randomisation procedure

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). Radiologist assessing cranial ultrasound was blinded

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

4% loss in HFOV and 2% loss in CV by 36 weeks PMA

Craft 2003

Methods

Multicentre (2) randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐gestational age between 23 and 34 weeks

‐ birth weight < 1000 g

‐ requiring mechanical ventilation

Stratification: by birth weight (500 to 750 g versus 751 to 1000 g)

46 infants enrolled

Mean birth weight: 22 infants in group '500 to 751 g' and 24 infants in group '751 to 1000 g'

Antenatal corticosteroids (full course): 45% in HFOV, 54% in CV

Mean age at randomisation: nor reported

Interventions

HFOV: HFFI using Infant Star. Settings: MAP to obtain optimal lung volume, 10 to 12 Hz, amplitude set to meet goal PCO2

HVS: yes; increase MAP to improve oxygenation with target FiO2 < 0.40
CV: SIMV using Infant Star. Synchronisation: yes. Settings: PEEP 4 to 6 cm H2O, PIP 16 to 24 cm H2O, rate adjusted to reach target PCO2

LPS: probably yes

Target PCO2: 50 to 60 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: HFOV until extubation or until MAP < 7 cm H2O

Crossover: if inability to ventilate (pH < 7.20) or to oxygenate (PO2 < 50)

Outcomes

CLD at 36 weeks PMA ‐ oxygen required to maintain SaO2 > 92%, death, IVH grades 3 or 4, air leak, ROP, failure leading to cross‐over of ventilation type

Notes

Surfactant: all infants received Survanta either in delivery room or within 20 minutes after intubation

Cross‐over: not reported

Postnatal corticosteroids: not reported

January 1999 to May 2000: trial stopped because of lack of effect

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "envelopes with a previously generated random number sequence"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "sealed opaque envelopes"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No information. Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency)

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Results on outcomes available for 100% of included infants

Van Reempts 2003

Methods

Single centre randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ gestational age < 32 wk

‐ less than 6 hrs old

‐ requiring mechanical ventilation

‐ FiO2 > 0.40 or MAP x FiO2 > 3.8

‐ chest x‐ray compatible with RDS

Exclusion criteria: active infection at birth, congenital anomalies

Stratification: not reported

300 infants enrolled and analysed.

Mean gestational age: 28.5 ± 1.8 wk in HFOV, 28.8 ± 1.9 in CV

Mean birth weight: 1173 ± 346 g in HFOV, 1217 ± 363 g in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: 63% in HFOV, 66% in CV

Median (range) age at randomisation: 0.93 hrs (0.33 to 24.9 hrs) in HFOV, 0.88 hrs (0.33 to 24.8 hrs) in CV

Interventions

HFOV: mix of OSC using Sensormedics 3100A (122 infants) and HFFI using Infant Star (25 infants). Settings: initial MAP 8 cm H2O if < 29 weeks and 10 cm H2O if 29 to 31 weeks, 10 Hz.

HVS: yes. Increase MAP to improve oxygenation and wean FiO2. Target FiO2 not reported
CV: IMV using Dräger Babylog 8000 (73 infants) or Infant Star (80 infants). Synchronisation: not reported. Settings: PIP 20 cm H2O (aim low), PEEP 4 cm H2O, IT < 0.35 sec, rate 80/min, I:E ratio1: 1.1

LPS: yes

Target PCO2: 35 to 45 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: preferentially HFOV until extubation, unless failure of weaning (criteria described) in which case infants were switched to CV

Crossover: infant was changed to alternative mode if failure criteria were met (one of the following: 1) inadequate oxygenation or ventilation, as described in the trial, in the first 7 days of life, 2) uncontrollable air leak, 3) cardiovascular dysfunction, 4) need for hand ventilation to maintain adequate gas exchange)

Outcomes

Chronic lung disease (CLD ‐ on O2 or assisted ventilation) at 36 weeks, death before discharge, failure of assigned treatment, CLD at 28 days, pulmonary interstitial air, pneumothorax, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, retinopathy of prematurity, days of IPPV or CPAP or O2, developmental outcome in early childhood for infants < 30 weeks or with an abnormal head ultrasound

Notes

Surfactant: after initial stabilization either on CV or on HFOV, all infants were given surfactant (Alveofact or Survanta)

Cross‐over: 12% in HFOV, 7% in CV

Postnatal corticosteroids: not reported
Author provided additional information on grades of ROP, prenatal steroids and neonatal mortality

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "were randomised"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "using sealed folded papers"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). Blinding was applied for grading of chronic lung disease, intracranial haemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia and retinopathy of prematurity

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Complete follow‐up for primary outcome

For long‐term outcome: only 57% follow‐up for HFOV, and 51% follow‐up for CV

Schreiber 2003

Methods

Single centre randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ birth weight < 2000 g

‐ gestational age < 34 wk

‐ < 72 hrs old

‐ RDS requiring mechanical ventilation and surfactant treatment

Exclusion criteria: major congenital anomalies; hydrops fetalis

2 by 2 factorial design

Stratification: by birth weight in 250 g categories

207 infants enrolled and analysed

Mean gestational age: 27.2 ± 2.6 wk for total study population

Mean birth weight: 983 ± 378 g for total study population

Antenatal corticosteroids: 53% for total study population

Mean age at randomisation: not reported

Interventions

Trial randomised infants to nitric oxide versus placebo and to HFOV versus CV
HFOV: OSC using Sensormedics 3100A. Settings: initial MAP 2 cm H2O higher than on CV, 10 to 15 Hz

HVS: yes. Use of higher MAP to optimise oxygenation, target FiO2 not reported
CV: IMV. Synchronisation: not reported. Settings: rate 40/min, PEEP 4 to 6 cm H2O, PIP to inflate chest

LPS: probably not

Target PCO2: 35 to 55 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: not reported

Cross‐over: allowed if patient's condition was considered to be critical by attending physician

Outcomes

Death, CLD at 28 days and 36 week PMA, pulmonary air leak, severe IVH grades 3 or 4, PVL, ROP

Notes

Surfactant: all infants received Survanta before enrolment (inclusion criterion)

Prophylactic indomethacin for infants with birth weight < 1250 g

Cross‐over: not reported

Postnatal corticosteroids: not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "randomly assigned" "according to permuted block design"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No information on allocation concealment

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). Blinding of outcome assessment for chest x‐ray, head ultrasound, ROP, neurodevelopment

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Complete follow‐up for primary analysis, 82% for developmental follow‐up

Vento 2005

Methods

Single centre randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ inborn

‐ birth weight 500 to 1500 g

‐ gestational age 24 to 29 wk

‐ requiring intubation at birth and ongoing intensive care

Exclusion criteria: congenital malformations, prenatal infections

Stratification: not reported

42 infants eligible; 2 infants excluded with congenital pneumonia; 40 infants enrolled and analysed

Mean gestational age: 27.1 ± 1.4 wk in HFOV, 27.4 ± 1.2 wk in CV

Mean birth weight: 882 ± 157 g in HFOV, 936 ± 285 g in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: any steroids in 100% in HFOV and 90% in CV, complete course of steroids in 55% in HFVO and 60% in CV

Mean age at randomisation: all infants were randomised within 30 minutes of life

Interventions

HFOV: HFFI using Dräger Babylog 8000+. Settings: initial MAP 2 cm H2O higher than with CV or at 10 cm H2O, 10 Hz

HVS: yes. Increase MAP to improve oxygenation and wean FiO2 with target < 0.25
CV: SIMV using Dräger Babylog 8000+. Setting: Vt 4‐6 ml/kg, PEEP 4 to 5 cm H2O, TI 0.30 to 0.40 sec, maximum rate 60/min, PIP weaned first

LPS: yes.

Target PCO2: 45 to 55 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: HFOV until extubation

Cross‐over: no

Outcomes

Death before discharge, CLD (O2 therapy at 36 weeks PMA), pneumothorax, PIE, IVH grades 3 or 4, PVL, ROP > stage 2

Notes

Surfactant: 75% of infants in both groups received surfactant. Criteria are not described

Cross‐over: 0% in both groups

Postnatal corticosteroids: 35% in HFOV, 60% in CV

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "random number allocation"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "opaque numbered sealed envelopes"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). No information on blinding of chest x‐ray or head ultrasound

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Completeness of follow‐up is 95%: two infants (one from each group) excluded after randomisation due to diagnosis of congenital pneumonia

Dani 2006

Methods

Single centre randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ gestational age < 30 wk

‐ requiring mechanical ventilation

‐ clinical signs and chest x‐ray compatible with RDS

Exclusion criteria: major congenital malformation; IVH > grade 3; ventilation for < 24 hrs

Stratification: no

25 infants enrolled

Mean gestational age: 28.3 ± 1.5 wk in HFOV, 28.2 ± 0.8 wk in CV

Mean birth weight: 1126 ± 170 g in HFOV, 1075 ± 313 g in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: 85% in HFOV, 75% in CV

Mean age at randomisation: 0.75 ± 0.15 hrs in HFOV, 0.78 ± 0.13 hrs in CV

Interventions

HFOV: OSC using SensorMedics 3100A. Settings: 10 Hz, initial MAP 8 cm H2O, amplitude 30 cm H2O

HVS: yes; no additional information on strategy or target FiO2

CV: pressure support ventilation with volume guarantee (PSV + VG) with Dräger Babylog 8000 plus. Synchronisation: yes. Settings: Vt 5 ml/kg, back‐up rate 60/min, PEEP 3 to 4 cm H2O

LPS: yes.

PaCO2 target: < 65 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: presumably until extubation (not explicitly reported)

Cross‐over: not reported

Outcomes

Mortality, CLD (defined as oxygen dependency at 36 weeks postmenstrual age), pneumothorax, any IVH, PVL, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration O2 therapy, duration of CPAP, length of hospital stay

Notes

Surfactant: all infants received Curosurf (200 mg/kg) after lung volume recruitment was obtained

Cross‐over: not reported

Postnatal corticosteroids: not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "Enrolled patients were randomly assigned..."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "...using the opening of sealed opaque envelopes balanced in blocks of four."

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). No information on blinding of assessment of head ultrasound or chest x‐ray

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

7/32 infants were excluded post randomisation for the analyses (3 in HFOV group and 4 in CV group) because of mechanical ventilation less than 24 hours, although this was not a pre‐specified exclusion criterion. Final analysis was done on 25 infants

Lista 2008

Methods

Single centre randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ gestational age 25 to 32 wk

‐ received at least one course of antenatal steroids

‐ requiring mechanical ventilation in the first hour of life

‐ severe RDS with a/A ratio of < 0.2

Exclusion criteria: lethal congenital anomalies; IVH > grade 2; suspected infection

Stratification: by gestational age (25 to 28 wk, 29 to 32 wk)

40 infants enrolled

Mean gestational age: 27.3 ± 2 in HFOV, 27.4 ± 2 in CV

Mean birth weight: 1015 ± 200 g in HFOV, 1006 ± 185 g in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: all infants had at least 1 course

Mean age at randomisation: all infants randomised at 1 hr of life

Interventions

HFOV: HFFI using Babylog 8000 plus. Settings: 10 Hz, initial MAP 8 to 10 cm H2O, amplitude 40%

HVS: yes. Increase MAP to maintain FiO2 below 0.30

CV: assist/control + volume guarantee using Babylog 8000 plus. Settings: Vt 5 ml/kg, PEEP 5 cm H2O, rate 60/min, inspiratory time 0.35 sec

LPS: yes

Target PCO2: 40 to 65 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: infants on HFOV were switched to CV if MAP < 8 cm H2O and FiO2 < 0.30

Cross‐over: no

Outcomes

Death at 36 wk PMA, CLD at 36 wk PMA, air leak severe IVH, PVL, severe ROP, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of oxygen dependency

Notes

All infants underwent a lung recruitment manoeuvre at birth (20 to 25 cm H2O during 2 sec followed by PEEP 5 cm H2O)

Surfactant: all infants received surfactant (Curosurf) within first 2 hours after birth

All infants received prophylactic ibuprofen

Crossover: 0% in both groups

Postnatal corticosteroids: 10% in HFOV, 9% in CV

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "following a sequence of random numbers..."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No information on concealment of allocation sequence.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). No information on blinding of assessment of head ultrasound or chest x‐ray

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: 5/45 eligible infants were excluded before randomisation. All enrolled infants were analysed

Salvo 2012

Methods

Multicentre (3) randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion criteria:

‐ birth weight < 1500 g

‐ gestational age < 30 wk

‐ no antenatal corticosteroids

‐ requiring mechanical ventilation for RDS within first 2 hrs of life

Exclusion criteria: major congenital malformation; hydrops fetalis; congenital diaphragmatic hernia; congenital pneumonia; multiple pregnancies; congenital heart disease

Stratification: not reported

112 infants eligible; 24 infants excluded (3 no consent, 18 not ventilated, 3 congenital pneumonia or malformation); 88 infants enrolled and analysed

Mean gestational age: 26.4 ± 2.2 wk in HFOV, 26.5 ± 3.2 wk in CV

Mean birth weight: 869 ± 266 g in HFOV, 913 ± 224 g in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: 0% (exclusion criterion)

Mean age at randomisation: not reported; all infants were randomised within 2 hrs of birth

Interventions

HFOV: OSC using Sensormedics 3100A. Settings: initial MAP 6 to 8 cm H2O, 15 Hz, I:E ratio 1:2, amplitude producing visible chest vibrations

HVS: yes. Lung volume recruitment as described by De Jaegere 2006. Target FiO2 < 0.30

CV: SIMV using Bear Cub 750 PSV. Settings: PIP 18 to 24 cm H2O, PEEP 5 to 8 cm H2O, IT 0.30 to 0.40 sec, rate 40 to 60/min

LPS: yes

Target PCO2: < 65 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: HFOV until extubation

Crossover: switch to alternative mode permitted but not mandatory if failure criteria are met (inadequate oxygenation or ventilation as described in trial protocol; signs of decreased cardiac output)

Outcomes

Primary outcomes were: the length of ventilatory support, the need of reintubation, and the length of nasal continuous positive airway pressure support in the postextubation period. Secondary outcomes were: the length of stay in neonatal intensive care unit and in hospital, death before discharge, adverse short‐ and long‐term pulmonary and neonatal outcomes, and the need for a second dose of surfactant and of postnatal glucocorticoid treatment

Notes

Surfactant: all infants received surfactant (Curosurf, 200 mg/kg) at a mean postnatal age of 47 min for the HFOV group and 44 min for the CV group

Cross‐over: 1 infant out of 44 in each group

Postnatal corticosteroids: 1 of 39 infants (2.5%) in HFOV, 4 of 39 infants (10.2%) in CV

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "computer generated random numbers"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No information on allocation concealment

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). No information on assessment of chest x‐ray and head ultrasound

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Complete follow‐up of enrolled infants: although it is mentioned that infants who crossed over would be excluded from the analyses ('as treated' instead of 'intention‐to‐treat' analysis), all 78 survivors (39 in each group) are represented in the table results. One patient crossed over in each arm

Sun 2014

Methods

Multicentre (2) randomised controlled trial

Participants

Inclusion Criteria:

‐ gestational age < 32 wks

‐ birth weight < 1500 g

‐ less than 24 hours of age

‐ requiring mechanical ventilation for RDS

‐ PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 200 mmHg

‐ Radiograph criteria of severe RDS

Exclusion criteria: genetic metabolic diseases, congenital abnormalities, pneumothorax, IVH grade 3 to 4

Stratification: by centre; by gender; by gestational age (< 28 wk, ≥ 28 wk)

366 infants eligible and randomised; 3 infants excluded post‐randomisation (congenital heart disease); 7 dropouts; 356 infants analysed

Mean gestational age: 29.3 ± 2.5 wk in HFOV, 29.5 ± 2.3 in CV

Mean birth weight: 1129 ± 199 g in HFOV, 1117 ± 241 g in CV

Antenatal corticosteroids: 77% in HFOV, 73% in CV

Mean age at randomisation: 5.8 ± 5.0 hrs in HFOV, 5.9 ± 5.1 in CV

Interventions

HFOV: OSC using SLE5000. Settings: initial MAP 6 to 8 cm H2O and progressively increased, 10 Hz, IT set at default level of ventilator (I:E ratio not reported)

HVS: yes. Lung volume recruitment as described by De Jaegere 2006. Target FiO2 < 0.25

CV: SIMV with pressure‐support (SIMV‐PS) using Servo‐i‐Maquet. Settings: Vt 4 to 6 ml/kg, PIP needed to achieve chest expansion, PEEP 4 to 6 cm H2O, IT 0.25 to 0.40 sec, rate ≤ 60/min (typically 30 to 40/min plus PS)

LPS: yes

Target PCO2: 40 to 55 mmHg

Duration of assigned treatment: HFOV until extubation

Cross‐over: no

Outcomes

Primary outcomes were mortality or incidence of BPD. Secondary outcomes were duration of ventilation and hospitalisation, surfactant requirements, pneumothorax, retinopathy of prematurity ≥ stage 2, and neurodevelopment at 18 months of corrected age. Survival and complete outcome data were available for 288 infants at 18 months of corrected age

Notes

Surfactant: rescue surfactant (Curosurf, 200 mg/kg) was administered after randomisation and only if, after 2 hours of ventilation, PaO2/FiO2 was < 200, and if parental consent was given (parents have to pay for the surfactant). A subsequent dose was administered 12 hours after the first dose if PaO2/FiO2 was < 200

Cross‐over: 0% in both groups

Postnatal corticosteroids: not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "computer generated randomization plan"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No information on allocation concealment

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding was not possible for care‐givers and not relevant for patients

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Blinding of outcome assessment was not relevant for most outcomes (death, oxygen dependency). Unclear whether assessment of head ultrasound was blinded

Long‐term follow‐up was blinded. Quote: "doctors were blind as to group allocation during follow‐up until 18 months of corrected age"

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Completeness of follow‐up: 98% for the primary outcome, 82% for neurodevelopmental outcome at 18 months

HFOV = high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation; OSC = true oscillator; HFFI : high frequency flow interrupter; CV = conventional ventilation; (S)IMV = (synchronised) intermittent mandatory ventilation; IT = inspiratory time; PIP = positive inspiratory pressure; PEEP = positive end‐expiratory pressure; MAP = mean airway pressure; CLD = chronic lung disease; ALS = air leak syndrome; IVH = intraventricular haemorrhage; PVL = periventricular leukomalacia; PMA = postmenstrual age; HVS = high volume strategy; LPS = lung protective strategy (for CV); Vt = tidal volume

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Cambonie 2003

No relevant outcomes

Froese 1987

After randomisation of infants (unknown gestation range), 5 of 11 in the HFOV group and an unknown number from the CV group were excluded from the comparisons between treatments

HiFO 1993

Rescue treatment with primary aim of preventing pulmonary air leak

Iscan 2014

Cross‐over trial comparing two modes of HFOV

Lombet 1996

A total of 22% excluded after randomisation, mixed population of preterm and term infants

Nazarchuk 2010

Prospective randomised trial comparing early HFOV to synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) in very low birth weight (VLBW) premature infants with omphalocoele: 15 infants weighing 501 to 1000 g less than 4 hours of age, who had received one dose of surfactant and required ventilation with mean airway pressure > 4 to 6 cm H2O and FiO2 > 0.25, and had an anticipated duration of ventilation greater than 48 hours. Newborns were stratified by birth weight and prenatal steroid status, and then randomised to either HFOV or SIMV with tidal volume monitoring. Ventilator management for patients in both study arms was strictly governed by protocols that included optimising lung inflation and blood gases, weaning strategies and extubation criteria.

Not included because of unique underlying condition of enrolled infants (presence of omphalocoele)

Pardou 1993

Results reported for only 13 (54%) of the 24 subjects randomised to high frequency flow interrupter or CV

Prashanth 2012

Prospective, non‐randomised comparison of HFOV versus synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) in 52 preterm infants 26 to 36 weeks' gestation. The study was excluded because it was not a randomised controlled trial

Ramanathan 1995

Mandatory cross‐over of treatments at 96 hrs

Singh 2012

Randomised controlled trial comparing HFOV (Dräger Babylog Plus) with synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) in preterm infants with birth weight > 750 g with RDS. The primary outcome was the oxygen index in the first 24 hours.

In all 53 out of the 215 eligible infants could not be included because of unavailability of the designated ventilator. A total of 150 preterm infants (mean gestational age of 32 weeks) were randomised to receive either HFOV (66 infants) or SIMV (84 infants). After randomisation 40 infants were excluded from the analyses because ventilation was discontinued within 24 hours (17 in the HFOV group and 23 in the SIMV group). The reason for discontinuation was death in 15 cases and "left against medical advice" in 25 cases. HFOV strategy was aimed at recruiting lung volume, and adequate lung inflation was assessed by counting posterior ribs on chest x‐ray. SIMV was aimed at keeping tidal volumes low. The study was excluded because of concerns about both selection bias (25% of eligible infants were not included) as well as attrition bias (post‐randomisation exclusion of 27% of infants). In addition, clinically relevant outcomes were not measured

Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by study ID]

Elazeez 2010

Methods

Elazeez 2010 conducted a randomised controlled trial to determine differences in regional cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV) in preterm infants receiving conventional ventilation (CV) versus high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) using a high‐volume strategy

Participants

Preterm infants admitted to the NICU at Mansoura University Children's Hospital before 12 hours of age. Those requiring ventilator support were randomly allocated to HFOV (n = 23) or CV (n= 24)

Interventions

HFOV versus CV

Outcomes

Doppler cranial ultrasound and echocardiography were performed on all subjects on day 1 and day 4 with measurements of CBFV in the anterior cerebral (ACA) and middle cerebral arteries (MCA) and assessment of the ductus arteriosus

Notes

Published as abstract PAS 2010

Sarafidis 2011

Methods

Sarafidis 2011 conducted a single centre randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of optimised synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) versus high‐frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) on circulating CC16 and IL‐6 levels

Participants

Preterm neonates (gestational age < 30 weeks) requiring mechanical ventilation within the first 2 hrs of life. Of the 30 neonates studied, 24 (gestational age 27.1 ± 1.7 weeks, birth weight (942 ± 214 g) were finally analysed

Interventions

Synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) versus high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) used as the initial ventilation methods

Outcomes

Serum CC16 and IL‐6 were measured on establishment of the assigned ventilation mode after admission, at days 3 and 14 of life as well as at 36 weeks postmenstrual age. Demographic‐perinatal data and clinical parameters were also recorded

Notes

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

Texas Infant Star

Trial name or title

Texas infant Star

Methods

Participants

Eligible infants include < 1250 g birth weight or < 29 weeks gestation

Interventions

Randomisation to 3 modes of ventilation: conventional, high frequency oscillation, and combination (HFOV + 2 to 5 bpm CV)

Outcomes

Starting date

Study commenced in late 1996 ‐ has been completed but not yet published

Contact information

Contact: Dr Anthony L Talbert, Texas Tech University School of Medicine, Odessa, Texas, USA. Phone +1 915 335 5270

Notes

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. HFOV versus CV (all trials)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death by 28 to 30 days Show forest plot

10

2148

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.88, 1.34]

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 1 Death by 28 to 30 days.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 1 Death by 28 to 30 days.

2 Mechanical ventilation at 28 to 30 days in survivors Show forest plot

3

767

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.86, 1.35]

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 2 Mechanical ventilation at 28 to 30 days in survivors.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 2 Mechanical ventilation at 28 to 30 days in survivors.

3 Oxygen at 28 to 30 days in survivors Show forest plot

6

1043

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.88, 1.10]

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 3 Oxygen at 28 to 30 days in survivors.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 3 Oxygen at 28 to 30 days in survivors.

4 CLD at 28 to 30 days (O2 + x‐ray) in survivors Show forest plot

4

820

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.74, 1.01]

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 4 CLD at 28 to 30 days (O2 + x‐ray) in survivors.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 4 CLD at 28 to 30 days (O2 + x‐ray) in survivors.

5 Death or CLD at 28 to 30 days Show forest plot

5

1160

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.85, 1.04]

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 5 Death or CLD at 28 to 30 days.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 5 Death or CLD at 28 to 30 days.

6 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge Show forest plot

17

3329

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.81, 1.10]

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 6 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 6 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

7 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors Show forest plot

17

2786

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.78, 0.96]

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 7 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 7 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

8 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge Show forest plot

17

3329

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.84, 0.97]

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 8 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 8 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

9 Any pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

13

2854

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.19 [1.05, 1.34]

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 9 Any pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 9 Any pulmonary air leak.

10 Gross pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

11

2185

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.88, 1.45]

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 10 Gross pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 10 Gross pulmonary air leak.

11 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ all grades Show forest plot

12

3084

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.95, 1.14]

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 11 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ all grades.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 11 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ all grades.

12 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4 Show forest plot

18

4069

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.95, 1.27]

Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 12 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 12 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

13 Periventricular leukomalacia Show forest plot

17

3983

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.81, 1.31]

Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 13 Periventricular leukomalacia.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 13 Periventricular leukomalacia.

14 Retinopathy of prematurity (stage 2 or greater) in survivors Show forest plot

12

2781

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.70, 0.93]

Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 14 Retinopathy of prematurity (stage 2 or greater) in survivors.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 14 Retinopathy of prematurity (stage 2 or greater) in survivors.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge Show forest plot

17

3329

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.81, 1.10]

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

1.1 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 ≤ 0.30

8

1755

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.71, 1.08]

1.2 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 > 0.30 or not specified

8

1478

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.81, 1.28]

1.3 No high volume strategy on HFOV

1

96

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.36 [0.39, 4.75]

2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors Show forest plot

17

2786

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.78, 0.96]

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

2.1 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 ≤ 0.30

8

1483

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.76, 0.99]

2.2 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 > 0.30 or not specified

8

1216

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.73, 1.00]

2.3 No high volume strategy of HFOV

1

87

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge Show forest plot

17

3329

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.84, 0.97]

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

3.1 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 ≤ 0.30

8

1755

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.81, 0.97]

3.2 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 > 0.30 or not specified

8

1478

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.81, 1.02]

3.3 No high volume strategy on HFOV

1

96

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.36 [0.39, 4.75]

4 Gross pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

11

2185

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.88, 1.45]

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

4.1 High volume strategy HFOV with target FiO2 ≤ 0.30

4

705

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.61, 1.51]

4.2 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 > 0.30 or not specified

6

1384

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.26 [0.93, 1.71]

4.3 No high volume strategy on HFOV

1

96

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.17, 2.58]

5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4 Show forest plot

18

4069

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.95, 1.27]

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

5.1 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 ≤ 0.30

7

1730

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.65, 1.08]

5.2 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 > 0.30 or not specified

9

1570

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.17 [0.92, 1.48]

5.3 No high volume strategy on HFOV

2

769

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.45 [1.09, 1.93]

6 Periventricular leukomalacia Show forest plot

17

3983

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.81, 1.31]

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

6.1 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 ≤ 0.30

8

1755

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.55, 1.48]

6.2 High volume strategy with target FiO2 > 0.30 or not specified

7

1459

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.60, 1.21]

6.3 No high volume strategy on HFOV

2

769

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.64 [1.02, 2.64]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge Show forest plot

16

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.80, 1.10]

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

1.1 Routine surfactant

15

3168

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.80, 1.10]

1.2 No routine surfactant

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.40, 2.58]

2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors Show forest plot

16

2699

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.78, 0.96]

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

2.1 Routine surfactant

15

2648

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.80, 0.97]

2.2 No routine surfactant

1

51

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.07, 0.73]

3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge Show forest plot

16

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.83, 0.97]

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

3.1 Routine surfactant

15

3168

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.84, 0.98]

3.2 No routine surfactant

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.29, 0.94]

4 Gross pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

10

2089

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.90, 1.49]

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

4.1 Routine surfactant

9

2024

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.14 [0.87, 1.49]

4.2 No routine surfactant

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.32 [0.65, 2.71]

5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4 Show forest plot

16

3300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.84, 1.19]

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

5.1 Routine surfactant

15

3235

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.84, 1.19]

5.2 No routine surfactant

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.33, 2.34]

6 Periventricular leukomalacia Show forest plot

15

3214

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.65, 1.16]

Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

6.1 Routine surfactant

15

3214

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.65, 1.16]

6.2 No routine surfactant

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 4. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge Show forest plot

16

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.80, 1.10]

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

1.1 Flow interrupter

4

410

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.52, 1.69]

1.2 HF oscillator

11

2026

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.75, 1.16]

1.3 Both HF oscillation and flow interruptors

1

797

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.75, 1.20]

2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors Show forest plot

16

2699

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.78, 0.96]

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

2.1 Flow interrupter

4

370

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.70, 1.32]

2.2 HF oscillator

11

1737

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.67, 0.90]

2.3 Both HF oscillators and flow interrupters

1

592

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.85, 1.14]

3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge Show forest plot

16

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.83, 0.97]

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

3.1 HF flow interrupter

4

410

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.74, 1.24]

3.2 HF oscillation

11

2026

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.74, 0.93]

3.3 Both HF oscillators and HF flow interrupters

1

797

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.89, 1.08]

4 Gross pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

10

2089

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.90, 1.49]

Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

4.1 HF flow interrupter

2

324

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.88 [0.96, 3.67]

4.2 HF oscillation

8

1765

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.80, 1.39]

4.3 Both HF oscillators and HF flow interrupters

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4 Show forest plot

16

3300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.84, 1.19]

Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

5.1 HF flow interrupter

4

410

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.65, 1.78]

5.2 HF oscillator

11

2093

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.90, 1.36]

5.3 Both HF oscillators and HF flow interrupters

1

797

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.46, 1.01]

6 Periventricular leukomalacia Show forest plot

16

3216

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.65, 1.16]

Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

6.1 HF flow interrupter

3

364

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.29 [0.52, 10.04]

6.2 HF oscillator

12

2055

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.60, 1.11]

6.3 Both HF oscillators and HF flow interrupters

1

797

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.38, 2.62]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 5. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge Show forest plot

16

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.80, 1.10]

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

1.1 Definitive LPS on CV

9

1679

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.70, 1.18]

1.2 Probable LPS on CV

3

1116

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.80, 1.21]

1.3 Probably no LPS on CV

2

248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.52, 1.53]

1.4 Definitively no LPS on CV

2

190

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.33, 1.88]

2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors Show forest plot

16

2699

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.78, 0.96]

Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

2.1 Definitive LPS on CV

9

1473

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.66, 0.94]

2.2 Probable LPS on CV

3

847

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.84, 1.10]

2.3 Probably no LPS on CV

2

205

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.79, 1.49]

2.4 Definitively no LPS on CV

2

174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.31, 0.75]

3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge Show forest plot

16

3235

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.83, 0.96]

Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

3.1 Definitive LPS on CV

9

1679

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.72, 0.95]

3.2 Probable LPS on CV

3

1118

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.89, 1.07]

3.3 Probably no LPS on CV

2

248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.82, 1.31]

3.4 Definitively no LPS on CV

2

190

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.56 [0.38, 0.81]

4 Gross pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

10

2089

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.90, 1.49]

Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

4.1 Definitive LPS on CV

6

1503

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.77, 1.41]

4.2 Probable LPS on CV

1

273

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.69 [0.51, 5.63]

4.3 Probably no LPS on CV

2

248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.53 [0.77, 3.04]

4.4 Definitively no LPS on CV

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.32 [0.65, 2.71]

5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4 Show forest plot

16

3300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.84, 1.19]

Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

5.1 Definitive LPS on CV

8

1654

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.81, 1.30]

5.2 Probable LPS on CV

3

1116

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.71, 1.27]

5.3 Probably no LPS on CV

3

340

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.32 [0.73, 2.37]

5.4 Definitively no PLS on CV

2

190

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.27, 1.39]

6 Periventricular leukomalacia Show forest plot

15

3214

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.65, 1.16]

Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

6.1 Definitive LPS on CV

9

1679

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.61, 1.28]

6.2 Probable LPS on CV

2

1070

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.48, 1.42]

6.3 Probably no LPS on CV

3

340

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.30, 2.06]

6.4 Definitively no LPS on CV

1

125

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [0.30, 5.45]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 6. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge Show forest plot

14

2887

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.78, 1.07]

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

1.1 Less than 2 hours

7

1315

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.77, 1.18]

1.2 2 to 6 hours

5

1300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.64, 1.14]

1.3 Greater than 6 hours

2

272

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.56, 1.48]

2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors Show forest plot

14

2404

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.75, 0.93]

Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

2.1 Less than 2 hours

7

1058

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.08]

2.2 2 to 6 hours

5

1127

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.56, 0.81]

2.3 Greater than 6 hours

2

219

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.74, 1.37]

3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge Show forest plot

14

2887

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.81, 0.94]

Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

3.1 Less than 2 hours

7

1315

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.87, 1.05]

3.2 2‐6 hours

5

1300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.64, 0.85]

3.3 Greater than 6 hours

2

272

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.79, 1.23]

4 Gross pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

9

1789

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.86, 1.46]

Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

4.1 Less than 2 hours

4

390

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.54 [0.84, 2.82]

4.2 2 ‐ 6 hours

3

1127

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.60, 1.24]

4.3 Greater than 6 hours

2

272

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.55 [0.92, 2.59]

5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4 Show forest plot

15

3050

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.85, 1.21]

Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

5.1 less than 2 hours

7

1382

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.59, 1.08]

5.2 2 ‐ 6 hours

6

1396

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.90, 1.46]

5.3 Greater than 6 hours

2

272

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.69, 2.01]

6 Periventricular leukomalacia Show forest plot

15

2916

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.61, 1.11]

Analysis 6.6

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

6.1 Less than 2 hours

8

1407

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.52, 1.90]

6.2 2 ‐ 6 hours

5

1300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.53, 1.08]

6.3 Greater than 6 hours

2

209

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.26, 4.01]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 7. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge Show forest plot

16

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.80, 1.10]

Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

1.1 1:1

1

273

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.70, 1.75]

1.2 1:2

9

1397

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.75, 1.25]

1.3 Range of I:Es or unknown

6

1563

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.71, 1.10]

2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors Show forest plot

16

2699

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 99% CI)

0.86 [0.76, 0.99]

Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

2.1 1:1

1

215

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 99% CI)

0.79 [0.43, 1.46]

2.2 1:2

9

1183

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 99% CI)

0.81 [0.66, 1.01]

2.3 Range of I:Es or unknown

6

1301

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 99% CI)

0.92 [0.77, 1.09]

3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge Show forest plot

16

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.83, 0.97]

Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

3.1 1:1

1

273

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.70, 1.24]

3.2 1:2

9

1397

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.77, 0.98]

3.3 Range of I:Es or unknown

6

1563

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.83, 1.01]

4 Gross pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

11

2185

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.88, 1.45]

Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

4.1 1:1

1

273

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.69 [0.51, 5.63]

4.2 1:2

7

1232

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.17 [0.86, 1.58]

4.3 Range of I:Es or unknown

3

680

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.62, 1.57]

5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4 Show forest plot

15

3259

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.84, 1.19]

Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

5.1 1:1

1

273

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.73 [1.04, 2.87]

5.2 1:2

7

1331

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.74, 1.26]

5.3 Range of I:Es or unknown

7

1655

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.70, 1.16]

6 Periventricular leukomalacia Show forest plot

15

3214

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.65, 1.16]

Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

6.1 1:1

1

273

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.39, 1.45]

6.2 1:2

8

1332

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.64, 1.43]

6.3 Range of I:Es or unknown

6

1609

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.48, 1.36]

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 1 Death by 28 to 30 days.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 1 Death by 28 to 30 days.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 2 Mechanical ventilation at 28 to 30 days in survivors.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 2 Mechanical ventilation at 28 to 30 days in survivors.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 3 Oxygen at 28 to 30 days in survivors.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 3 Oxygen at 28 to 30 days in survivors.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 4 CLD at 28 to 30 days (O2 + x‐ray) in survivors.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 4 CLD at 28 to 30 days (O2 + x‐ray) in survivors.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 5 Death or CLD at 28 to 30 days.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 5 Death or CLD at 28 to 30 days.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 6 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 6 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 7 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 7 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 8 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 8 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 9 Any pulmonary air leak.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 9 Any pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 10 Gross pulmonary air leak.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 10 Gross pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 11 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ all grades.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 11 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ all grades.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 12 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 12 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 13 Periventricular leukomalacia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 13 Periventricular leukomalacia.

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 14 Retinopathy of prematurity (stage 2 or greater) in survivors.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 HFOV versus CV (all trials), Outcome 14 Retinopathy of prematurity (stage 2 or greater) in survivors.

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.6

Comparison 4 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.6

Comparison 6 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge.

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors.

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge.

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 4 Gross pulmonary air leak.

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4.

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.6

Comparison 7 HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV, Outcome 6 Periventricular leukomalacia.

Comparison 1. HFOV versus CV (all trials)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death by 28 to 30 days Show forest plot

10

2148

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.88, 1.34]

2 Mechanical ventilation at 28 to 30 days in survivors Show forest plot

3

767

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.86, 1.35]

3 Oxygen at 28 to 30 days in survivors Show forest plot

6

1043

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.88, 1.10]

4 CLD at 28 to 30 days (O2 + x‐ray) in survivors Show forest plot

4

820

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.74, 1.01]

5 Death or CLD at 28 to 30 days Show forest plot

5

1160

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.85, 1.04]

6 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge Show forest plot

17

3329

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.81, 1.10]

7 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors Show forest plot

17

2786

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.78, 0.96]

8 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge Show forest plot

17

3329

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.84, 0.97]

9 Any pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

13

2854

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.19 [1.05, 1.34]

10 Gross pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

11

2185

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.88, 1.45]

11 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ all grades Show forest plot

12

3084

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.95, 1.14]

12 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4 Show forest plot

18

4069

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.95, 1.27]

13 Periventricular leukomalacia Show forest plot

17

3983

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.81, 1.31]

14 Retinopathy of prematurity (stage 2 or greater) in survivors Show forest plot

12

2781

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.70, 0.93]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. HFOV versus CV (all trials)
Comparison 2. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge Show forest plot

17

3329

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.81, 1.10]

1.1 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 ≤ 0.30

8

1755

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.71, 1.08]

1.2 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 > 0.30 or not specified

8

1478

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.81, 1.28]

1.3 No high volume strategy on HFOV

1

96

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.36 [0.39, 4.75]

2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors Show forest plot

17

2786

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.78, 0.96]

2.1 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 ≤ 0.30

8

1483

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.76, 0.99]

2.2 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 > 0.30 or not specified

8

1216

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.73, 1.00]

2.3 No high volume strategy of HFOV

1

87

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge Show forest plot

17

3329

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.84, 0.97]

3.1 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 ≤ 0.30

8

1755

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.81, 0.97]

3.2 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 > 0.30 or not specified

8

1478

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.81, 1.02]

3.3 No high volume strategy on HFOV

1

96

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.36 [0.39, 4.75]

4 Gross pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

11

2185

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.88, 1.45]

4.1 High volume strategy HFOV with target FiO2 ≤ 0.30

4

705

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.61, 1.51]

4.2 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 > 0.30 or not specified

6

1384

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.26 [0.93, 1.71]

4.3 No high volume strategy on HFOV

1

96

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.17, 2.58]

5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4 Show forest plot

18

4069

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.95, 1.27]

5.1 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 ≤ 0.30

7

1730

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.65, 1.08]

5.2 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 > 0.30 or not specified

9

1570

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.17 [0.92, 1.48]

5.3 No high volume strategy on HFOV

2

769

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.45 [1.09, 1.93]

6 Periventricular leukomalacia Show forest plot

17

3983

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.81, 1.31]

6.1 High volume strategy on HFOV with target FiO2 ≤ 0.30

8

1755

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.55, 1.48]

6.2 High volume strategy with target FiO2 > 0.30 or not specified

7

1459

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.60, 1.21]

6.3 No high volume strategy on HFOV

2

769

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.64 [1.02, 2.64]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by volume strategy on HFOV
Comparison 3. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge Show forest plot

16

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.80, 1.10]

1.1 Routine surfactant

15

3168

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.80, 1.10]

1.2 No routine surfactant

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.40, 2.58]

2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors Show forest plot

16

2699

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.78, 0.96]

2.1 Routine surfactant

15

2648

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.80, 0.97]

2.2 No routine surfactant

1

51

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.07, 0.73]

3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge Show forest plot

16

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.83, 0.97]

3.1 Routine surfactant

15

3168

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.84, 0.98]

3.2 No routine surfactant

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.29, 0.94]

4 Gross pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

10

2089

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.90, 1.49]

4.1 Routine surfactant

9

2024

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.14 [0.87, 1.49]

4.2 No routine surfactant

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.32 [0.65, 2.71]

5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4 Show forest plot

16

3300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.84, 1.19]

5.1 Routine surfactant

15

3235

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.84, 1.19]

5.2 No routine surfactant

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.33, 2.34]

6 Periventricular leukomalacia Show forest plot

15

3214

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.65, 1.16]

6.1 Routine surfactant

15

3214

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.65, 1.16]

6.2 No routine surfactant

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by use of surfactant
Comparison 4. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge Show forest plot

16

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.80, 1.10]

1.1 Flow interrupter

4

410

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.52, 1.69]

1.2 HF oscillator

11

2026

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.75, 1.16]

1.3 Both HF oscillation and flow interruptors

1

797

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.75, 1.20]

2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors Show forest plot

16

2699

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.78, 0.96]

2.1 Flow interrupter

4

370

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.70, 1.32]

2.2 HF oscillator

11

1737

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.67, 0.90]

2.3 Both HF oscillators and flow interrupters

1

592

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.85, 1.14]

3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge Show forest plot

16

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.83, 0.97]

3.1 HF flow interrupter

4

410

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.74, 1.24]

3.2 HF oscillation

11

2026

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.74, 0.93]

3.3 Both HF oscillators and HF flow interrupters

1

797

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.89, 1.08]

4 Gross pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

10

2089

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.90, 1.49]

4.1 HF flow interrupter

2

324

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.88 [0.96, 3.67]

4.2 HF oscillation

8

1765

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.80, 1.39]

4.3 Both HF oscillators and HF flow interrupters

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4 Show forest plot

16

3300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.84, 1.19]

5.1 HF flow interrupter

4

410

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.65, 1.78]

5.2 HF oscillator

11

2093

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.90, 1.36]

5.3 Both HF oscillators and HF flow interrupters

1

797

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.46, 1.01]

6 Periventricular leukomalacia Show forest plot

16

3216

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.65, 1.16]

6.1 HF flow interrupter

3

364

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.29 [0.52, 10.04]

6.2 HF oscillator

12

2055

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.60, 1.11]

6.3 Both HF oscillators and HF flow interrupters

1

797

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.38, 2.62]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by type of HFO ventilator
Comparison 5. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge Show forest plot

16

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.80, 1.10]

1.1 Definitive LPS on CV

9

1679

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.70, 1.18]

1.2 Probable LPS on CV

3

1116

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.80, 1.21]

1.3 Probably no LPS on CV

2

248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.52, 1.53]

1.4 Definitively no LPS on CV

2

190

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.33, 1.88]

2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors Show forest plot

16

2699

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.86 [0.78, 0.96]

2.1 Definitive LPS on CV

9

1473

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.66, 0.94]

2.2 Probable LPS on CV

3

847

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.84, 1.10]

2.3 Probably no LPS on CV

2

205

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.79, 1.49]

2.4 Definitively no LPS on CV

2

174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.31, 0.75]

3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge Show forest plot

16

3235

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.83, 0.96]

3.1 Definitive LPS on CV

9

1679

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.72, 0.95]

3.2 Probable LPS on CV

3

1118

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.89, 1.07]

3.3 Probably no LPS on CV

2

248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.82, 1.31]

3.4 Definitively no LPS on CV

2

190

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.56 [0.38, 0.81]

4 Gross pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

10

2089

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.90, 1.49]

4.1 Definitive LPS on CV

6

1503

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.77, 1.41]

4.2 Probable LPS on CV

1

273

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.69 [0.51, 5.63]

4.3 Probably no LPS on CV

2

248

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.53 [0.77, 3.04]

4.4 Definitively no LPS on CV

1

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.32 [0.65, 2.71]

5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4 Show forest plot

16

3300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.84, 1.19]

5.1 Definitive LPS on CV

8

1654

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.81, 1.30]

5.2 Probable LPS on CV

3

1116

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.71, 1.27]

5.3 Probably no LPS on CV

3

340

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.32 [0.73, 2.37]

5.4 Definitively no PLS on CV

2

190

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.27, 1.39]

6 Periventricular leukomalacia Show forest plot

15

3214

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.65, 1.16]

6.1 Definitive LPS on CV

9

1679

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.61, 1.28]

6.2 Probable LPS on CV

2

1070

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.48, 1.42]

6.3 Probably no LPS on CV

3

340

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.30, 2.06]

6.4 Definitively no LPS on CV

1

125

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [0.30, 5.45]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by lung protective (LPS) CV strategy
Comparison 6. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge Show forest plot

14

2887

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.78, 1.07]

1.1 Less than 2 hours

7

1315

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.77, 1.18]

1.2 2 to 6 hours

5

1300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.64, 1.14]

1.3 Greater than 6 hours

2

272

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.56, 1.48]

2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors Show forest plot

14

2404

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.75, 0.93]

2.1 Less than 2 hours

7

1058

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.08]

2.2 2 to 6 hours

5

1127

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.56, 0.81]

2.3 Greater than 6 hours

2

219

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.74, 1.37]

3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge Show forest plot

14

2887

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.81, 0.94]

3.1 Less than 2 hours

7

1315

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.87, 1.05]

3.2 2‐6 hours

5

1300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.64, 0.85]

3.3 Greater than 6 hours

2

272

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.79, 1.23]

4 Gross pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

9

1789

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.86, 1.46]

4.1 Less than 2 hours

4

390

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.54 [0.84, 2.82]

4.2 2 ‐ 6 hours

3

1127

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.60, 1.24]

4.3 Greater than 6 hours

2

272

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.55 [0.92, 2.59]

5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4 Show forest plot

15

3050

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.85, 1.21]

5.1 less than 2 hours

7

1382

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.59, 1.08]

5.2 2 ‐ 6 hours

6

1396

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.90, 1.46]

5.3 Greater than 6 hours

2

272

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.69, 2.01]

6 Periventricular leukomalacia Show forest plot

15

2916

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.61, 1.11]

6.1 Less than 2 hours

8

1407

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.52, 1.90]

6.2 2 ‐ 6 hours

5

1300

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.53, 1.08]

6.3 Greater than 6 hours

2

209

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.26, 4.01]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by age at randomisation
Comparison 7. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Death by 36 to 37 weeks or discharge Show forest plot

16

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.80, 1.10]

1.1 1:1

1

273

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.70, 1.75]

1.2 1:2

9

1397

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.75, 1.25]

1.3 Range of I:Es or unknown

6

1563

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.71, 1.10]

2 CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge in survivors Show forest plot

16

2699

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 99% CI)

0.86 [0.76, 0.99]

2.1 1:1

1

215

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 99% CI)

0.79 [0.43, 1.46]

2.2 1:2

9

1183

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 99% CI)

0.81 [0.66, 1.01]

2.3 Range of I:Es or unknown

6

1301

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 99% CI)

0.92 [0.77, 1.09]

3 Death or CLD at 36 to 37 weeks PMA or discharge Show forest plot

16

3233

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.83, 0.97]

3.1 1:1

1

273

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.70, 1.24]

3.2 1:2

9

1397

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.77, 0.98]

3.3 Range of I:Es or unknown

6

1563

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.83, 1.01]

4 Gross pulmonary air leak Show forest plot

11

2185

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.88, 1.45]

4.1 1:1

1

273

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.69 [0.51, 5.63]

4.2 1:2

7

1232

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.17 [0.86, 1.58]

4.3 Range of I:Es or unknown

3

680

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.62, 1.57]

5 Intraventricular haemorrhage ‐ grades 3 or 4 Show forest plot

15

3259

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.84, 1.19]

5.1 1:1

1

273

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.73 [1.04, 2.87]

5.2 1:2

7

1331

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.74, 1.26]

5.3 Range of I:Es or unknown

7

1655

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.70, 1.16]

6 Periventricular leukomalacia Show forest plot

15

3214

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.65, 1.16]

6.1 1:1

1

273

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.39, 1.45]

6.2 1:2

8

1332

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.64, 1.43]

6.3 Range of I:Es or unknown

6

1609

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.48, 1.36]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. HFOV versus CV subgrouped by I:E ratio on HFOV