Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

نقش ونتیلاسیون مکانیکی همگام‌سازی شده در حمایت تنفسی از نوزادان تازه متولد ‌‌شده

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Amini 2013 {published data only}

Amini E, Nayeri FS, Hemati A, Esmaeilinia T, Nili F, Dalili H, et al. Comparison of High Frequency Positive Pressure Mechanical Ventilation (HFPPV) With Conventional Method in the Treatment of Neonatal Respiratory Failure. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal 2013;15(3):183-6. CENTRAL [PMID: 23983995]

Baumer 2000 {published data only}

Baumer JH. International randomised controlled trial of patient triggered ventilation in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2000;82(1):F5-F10. CENTRAL

Beresford 2000 {published data only}

Beresford MW, Shaw NJ, Manning D. Randomised controlled trial of patient triggered and conventional fast rate ventilation in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2000;82(1):F14-18. CENTRAL

Bernstein 1996 {published data only}

Bernstein G, Mannino FL, Heldt GP, Callahan JD, Bull DH, Sola A, et al. Randomized multicenter trial comparing synchronized and conventional intermittent mandatory ventilation in neonates. Journal of Pediatrics 1996;128(4):453-63. CENTRAL

Chan 1993 {published data only}

Chan V, Greenough A. Randomised controlled trial of weaning by patient triggered ventilation or conventional ventilation. European Journal of Pediatrics 1993;152(1):51-4. CENTRAL

Chan 1994 {published data only}

Chan V, Greenough A. Comparison of weaning by patient triggered ventilation or synchronous mandatory intermittent ventilation. Acta Paediatrica 1994;83(3):335-7. CENTRAL

Chen 1997 {published data only}

Chen J-Y, Ling U-P, Chen J-H. Comparison of synchronized and conventional intermittent mandatory ventilation in neonates. Acta Paediatrica Japonica 1997;39(5):578-83. CENTRAL

Courtney 2002a {published data only}

Courtney SE, Durand DJ, Asselin JM, Hudak ML, Aschner JL, Shoemaker CT. High-Frequency Oscillatory ventilation versus conventional mechanical ventilation for very-low birth-weight infants. New England Journal of Medicine 2002;347(9):643-52. CENTRAL [PMID: 12200551]

Craft 2003a {published data only}

Craft AP, 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. CENTRAL [PMID: 12556921]

D'Angio 2005 {published data only}

D'Angio CT, Chess PR, Kovacs SJ, Sinkin RA, Phelps DL, Kendig JW, et al. Pressure-regulated volume control ventilation vs synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation for very low birthweight infants. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 2005;159(9):868-75. CENTRAL

Dimitriou 1995a {published data only}

Dimitriou G, Greenough A, Giffin FJ, Chan V. Synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation modes versus patient triggered ventilation during weaning. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1995;72(3):F188-90. CENTRAL

Dimitriou 1995b {published data only}

Dimitriou G, Greenough A, Giffin FJ, Chan V. Synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation modes versus patient triggered ventilation during weaning. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1995;72(3):F188-90. CENTRAL

Donn 1994 {published data only}

Donn SM, Nicks JJ, Becker MA. Flow-synchronized ventilation of preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Journal of Perinatology 1994;14(2):90-4. CENTRAL

Erdemir 2014 {published data only}

Erdemir A, Kahramaner Z, Turkoglu E, Cosar H, Sutcuoglu S, Ozer EA. Effects of synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation versus pressure support plus volume guarantee ventilation in the weaning phase of preterm infants*. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 2014;15(3):236-41. CENTRAL [PMID: 24608494]

Heicher 1981 {published data only}

Heicher DA, Kasting DS, Harrod JR. Prospective clinical comparison of two methods for mechanical ventilation of neonates: rapid rate and short inspiratory time versus slow rate and long inspiratory time. Journal of Pediatrics 1981;98(6):957-61. CENTRAL

Liu 2011 {published data only}

Liu CQ, Cui Z, Xia YF, Ma Li, Fan LL. Randomized controlled study of targeted tidal volume ventilation for treatment of severe neonatal respiratory distress syndrome [Chinese]. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi 2011;13(9):696-9. CENTRAL [PMID: 21924013]

OCTAVE 1991 {published data only}

Oxford Region Controlled Trial of Artificial Ventilation (OCTAVE) Study Group. Multicentre randomised controlled trial of high against low frequency positive pressure ventilation. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1991;66(7 Spec No):770-5. CENTRAL

Patel 2012 {published data only}

Patel DS, Murthy V, Hannam S, Lee S, Rafferty GF, Greenough A. Randomised weaning trial comparing assist control to pressure support ventilation. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2012;97(6):F429-33. CENTRAL [PMID: 22516476]

Pohlandt 1992 {published data only}

Pohlandt F, Saule H, Schrîder H, Leonhardt A, Hîrnchen H, Wolff C, Bernsau U, Oppermann H-C. Decreased incidence of extra-alveolar air leakage or death prior to air leakage in high versus low rate positive pressure ventilation: results of a randomised seven-centre trial in preterm infants. European Journal of Pediatrics 1992;151(12):904-9. CENTRAL

Reyes 2006 {published data only}

Reyes ZC, Claure N, Tauscher MK, D'Ugard C, Vanbuskirk S, Bancalari E. Randomized, controlled trial comparing synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation and synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation plus pressure support in preterm infants. Pediatrics 2006;118(4):1409-17. CENTRAL

Singh 2012 {published data only}

Singh S N, Malik G K, Prashanth G P, 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 Journal of Pediatrics 2012;49(5):405-8. CENTRAL [PMID: 22700666]

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. CENTRAL [PMID: 23764865]

Abd El‐Moneim 2005 {published data only}

Abd El-Moneim ES, Fuerste HO, Krueger M, Elmagd AA, Brandis M, Schulte-Moenting J, et al. Pressure support ventilation combined with volume guarantee versus synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation: a pilot crossover trial in premature infants in their weaning phase. Critical Care Medicine 2005;6(3):286-92. CENTRAL

Abubakar 2005 {published data only}

Abubakar K, Keszler M. Effect of volume guarantee combined with assist/control vs synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation. Journal of Perinatology 2005;25(10):638-42. CENTRAL

Amitay 1993 {published data only}

Amitay M, Etches PC, Finer NN, Maidens JM. Synchronous mechanical ventilation of the neonate with respiratory disease. Critical Care Medicine 1993;21(1):118-24. CENTRAL

Bernstein 1993 {published data only}

Bernstein G, Cleary JP, Heldt GP, Rosas JF, Schellenberg l, Mannino FL. Response time and reliability of three neonatal patient triggered ventilators. American Review of Respiratory Disease 1993;148(2):358-64. CENTRAL

Bitondo 2012 {published data only}

Bitondo M M, Aguirre-Bermeo H M, Moccaldo A, De Santis P, Bernini V, Tersali A, et al. Patient-ventilator asynchrony during conventional or automated pressure support ventilation in difficult-to-wean patients. Critical Care 2012;16(Suppl 1):P126. CENTRAL [DOI: 10.1186/cc10733]

Chan 1993b {published data only}

Chan V, Greenough A. Neonatal patient triggered ventilators. Performance in acute and chronic lung disease. Br J Int Care 1993;3:216-9. CENTRAL

Cheema 2001 {published data only}

Cheema IU, Ahluwalia JS. Feasibility of tidal volume-guided ventilation in newborn infants: a randomized, crossover trial using the volume guarantee modality. Pediatrics 2001;107:1323-8. CENTRAL

Clavieras 2013 {published data only}

Clavieras N, Wysocki M, Coisel Y, Galia F, Conseil M, Chanques G, et al. Prospective randomized crossover study of a new closed-loop control system versus pressure support during weaning from mechanical ventilation. Anesthesiology 2013;119(3):631-41. CENTRAL [PMID: 23619172]

Cleary 1995 {published data only}

Cleary JP, Bernstein G, Mannino FL, Heldt BP. Improved oxygenation during synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation in neonates with respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized, crossover study. Journal of Pediatrics 1995;126(3):407-11. CENTRAL

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. CENTRAL

deBoer 1993 {published data only}

de Boer RC, Jones A, Ward PS, Baumer JH. Long term trigger ventilation in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1993;68:308-11. CENTRAL

de la Oliva 2012 {published data only}

de la Oliva P, Schuffelmann C, Gomez-Zamora A, Villar J, Kacmarek R M. Asynchrony, neural drive, ventilatory variability and COMFORT: NAVA versus pressure support in pediatric patients. A non-randomized cross-over trial. Intensive Care Med 2012;38(5):838-46. CENTRAL [PMID: 22481227]

De Luca 2009 {published data only}

De Luca D, Conti G, Piastra M, Paolillo PM. Flow-cycled versus time-cycled sIPPV in preterm babies with RDS: a breath-to-breath randomised cross-over trial. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal edition 2009;94(6):F397-401. CENTRAL [PMID: 19574255]

Dimitriou 1998 {published data only}

Dimitriou G, Greenough A, Lauscher B, Yamaguchi N. Comparison of airway pressure triggered and airflow triggered ventilation in immature infants. Acta Paediatrica 1998;87(12):1256-60. CENTRAL

Duman 2012 {published data only}

Duman N, Tuzun F, Sutcuoglu S, Yesilirmak C D, Kumral A, Ozkan H. Impact of volume guarantee on synchronized ventilation in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 2012;38(8):1358-64. CENTRAL [PMID: 22618094]

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 intermittent mandatory ventilation in very low birth weight infants: a pilot study of two ventilation protocols. Journal of Perinatology 2001;21(4):221-9. CENTRAL

Estay 2009 {published data only}

Estay A, Claure N, D'Ugard C, Organero R, Bancalari E. Effects of instrumental dead space reduction during weaning from synchronized ventilation in preterm infants. Journal of Perinatology 2010;30(7):479-83. CENTRAL [PMID: 20010615]

Firme 2005 {published data only}

Firme SR, McEvoy CT, Alconcel C, Tanner J, Durand M. Episodes of hypoxemia during synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation in ventilator-dependent very low birth weight infants. Pediatric Pulmonology 2005;40(1):9-14. CENTRAL

Friedlich 1999 {published data only}

Friedlich P, Lecart C, Posen R, Ramicone E, Chan L, Ramanathan R. A randomized trial of nasopharyngeal synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation versus nasopharyngeal continuous positive airway pressure in very low birthweight infants after extubation. Journal of Perinatology 1999;19(6 Pt 1):413-18. CENTRAL

Greenough 1986 {published data only}

Greenough A, Morley CJ, Pool J. Fighting the ventilator - are fast rates an effective alternative to paralysis? Early Human Development 1986;13(2):189-94. CENTRAL

Greenough 1987a {published data only}

Greenough A, Pool J, Greenall F, Morley CJ, Gamsu H. Comparison of different rates of artificial ventilation in preterm neonates with the respiratory distress syndrome. Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica 1987;76(5):706-12. CENTRAL

Greenough 1987b {published data only}

Greenough A, Greenall F, Gamsu H. Synchronous respiration - which ventilator rate is best? Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica 1987;76(5):713-18. CENTRAL

Greenough 1988a {published data only}

Greenough A, Greenall F. Patient triggered ventilation in premature neonates. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1988;63:77-8. CENTRAL

Greenough 1988b {published data only}

Greenough A, Pool J. Neonatal patient triggered ventilation. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1988;63:394-7. CENTRAL

Greenough 1991 {published data only}

Greenough A, Hird MF, Chan V. Airway pressure triggered ventilation for preterm neonates. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 1991;19(6):471-6. CENTRAL

Gupta 2008 {published data only}

Gupta S, Sinha SK, Donn SM. The effect of two levels of pressure support ventilation on tidal volume delivery and minute ventilation in preterm infants. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2009;94(2):F80-3. CENTRAL [PMID: 18676412]

Guthrie 2005 {published data only}

Guthrie SO, Lynn C, Lafleur BJ, Donn SM, Walsh WF. A crossover analysis of mandatory minute ventilation compared to synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation in neonates. Journal of Perinatology 2005;25(10):643-6. CENTRAL

Guven 2013 {published data only}

Guven S, Bozdag S, Saner H, Cetinkaya M, Yazar A S, Erguven M. Early neonatal outcomes of volume guaranteed ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013;26(4):396-401. CENTRAL [PMID: 23039373 ]

Herrera 2002 {published data only}

Herrera CM, Gerhardt T, Claure N, Everett R, Musante G, Thomas C, et al. Effects of volume-guaranteed synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation in preterm infants recovering from respiratory failure. Pediatrics 2002;110(3):529-33. CENTRAL

Hird 1990a {published data only}

Hird MF, Greenough A. Causes of failure of neonatal patient triggered ventilation. Early Human Development 1990;23(2):101-8. CENTRAL

Hird 1990b {published data only}

Hird MF, Greenough A. Gestational age: an important influence on the success of patient triggered ventilation. Clinical Physics and Physiological Measurement 1990;11(4):307-12. CENTRAL

Hird 1991a {published data only}

Hird MF, Greenough A. Randomised trial of patient triggered ventilation versus high frequency positive pressure ventilation in acute respiratory distress. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 1991;19(5):379-84 (listed in Wallach EE (ed) Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology, February 1993). CENTRAL

Hird 1991b {published data only}

Hird MF, Greenough A. Patient triggered ventilation in chronically ventilator-dependent infants. European Journal of Pediatrics 1991;150(10):732-4. CENTRAL

Hird 1991c {published data only}

Hird MF, Greenough A. Patient triggered ventilation using a flow triggered system. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1991;66(10 Spec No):1140-3. CENTRAL

Hird 1991d {published data only}

Hird MF, Greenough A. Comparison of triggering systems for neonatal patient triggered ventilation. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1991;66(4 Spec No):426-8 (abstracted in Clinical Digest Series - Pediatrics/Neonatology, Northbrook IL, USA). CENTRAL

Hummler 1996 {published data only}

Hummler H, Gerhardt T, Gonzalez A, Claure N, Everett R, Bancalari E. Influence of different methods of synchronized mechanical ventilation on ventilation, gas exchange, patient effort and blood pressure fluctuations in premature neonates. Pediatric Pulmonology 1996;22(5):305-13. CENTRAL

Hummler 1997 {published data only}

Hummler H, Gerhardt T, Gonzalez A, Claure N, Everett R, Bancalari E. Increased incidence of sighs (augmented inspiratory eforts) during synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) in preterm neonates. Pediatric Pulmonology 1997;24(3):195-203. CENTRAL

Hummler 2006 {published data only}

Hummler H, Engelmann A, Pohlandt F, Franz AR. Volume-controlled intermittent mandatory ventilation in preterm infants with hypoxemic episodes. Intensive Care Medicine 2006;32(4):577-84. CENTRAL

Jaber 2005 {published data only}

Jaber S, Delay JM, Matecki S, Sebbane M, Eledjam JJ, Brochard L. Volume-guaranteed pressure-support ventilation facing acute changes in ventilatory demand. Intensive Care Medicine 2005;31(9):1181-8. CENTRAL

Jarreau 1996 {published data only}

Jarreau P-H, Moriette G, Mussat P, Mariette C, Mohanna A, Harf A, et al. Patient-triggered ventilation decreases the work of breathing in neonates. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1996;153(3):1176-81. CENTRAL

John 1994 {published data only}

John J, Bjîrklung LJ, Svenningsen NW, Jonson B. Airway and body surface sensors for triggering in neonatal ventilation. Acta Paediatrica 1994;83(9):903-9. CENTRAL

Kapasi 2001 {published data only}

Kapasi M, Fujino Y, Kirmse M, Catlin EA, Kacmarek RM. Effort and work of breathing in neonates during assisted patient triggered ventilation. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 2001;2:9-16. CENTRAL

Keszler 2004 {published data only}

Keszler M, Abubakar K. Volume guarantee: stability of tidal volume and incidence of hypocarbia. Pediatric Pulmonology 2004;38(3):240-5. CENTRAL

Laubscher 1997 {published data only}

Laubscher B Greenough A, Kavadia V. Comparison of body surface and airway triggered ventilation in extremely premature infants. Acta Paediatrica 1997;86(1):102-4. CENTRAL

Lista 2006 {published data only}

Lista G, Castoldi F, Fontana P, Reali R, Reggiani A, Bianchi S, et al. Lung inflammation in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: effects of ventilation with different tidal volumes. Pediatric Pulmonology 2006;41(4):357-63. CENTRAL

Luyt 2001 {published data only}

Luyt K, Wright D, Baumer JH. Randomised study comparing extent of hypocarbia in preterm infants during conventional and patient triggered ventilation. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal edition 2001;84(1):F14-7. CENTRAL

McCallion 2007 {published data only}

McCallion N, Lau R, Morley CJ, Dargaville PA. Neonatal volume guarantee ventilation: effects of spontaneous breathing, triggered and untriggered inflations. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 2008;93(1):F36-9. CENTRAL [PMID: 17686798]

Migliori 2003 {published data only}

Migliori C, Cavazza A, Motta M, Chirico G. Effect on respiratory function of pressure support ventilation versus synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation in preterm infants. Pediatric Pulmonology 2003;35(5):364-7. CENTRAL

Mitchell 1989 {published data only}

Mitchell A, Greenough A, Hird MF. Limitations of neonatal patient triggered ventilation. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1989;64:924-9. CENTRAL

Mizuno 1994 {published data only}

Mizuno K, Takeuchi T, Itabashi K, Okuyama K. Efficacy of synchronized IMV on weaning neonates from the ventilator. Acta Paediatrica Japonica 1994;36(2):162-6. CENTRAL

Moretti 1999 {published data only}

Moretti C, Gizzi C, Papoff P, Lampariello S, Capoferri M, Calcagnini G, Bucci G. Comparing the effects of nasal synchronized intermittent positive pressure ventilation (nSIPPV) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) after extubation in very low birth weight infants. Early Human Development 1999;56(2–3):167–77. CENTRAL

Mrozek 2000 {published data only}

Mrozek JD, Bendel-Stenzel EM, Meyers PA, Bing DR, Connett JE, Mammel MC. Randomized controlled trial of volume-targeted synchronized ventilation and conventional intermittent mandatory ventilation following initial exogenous surfactant therapy. Pediatric Pulmonology 2000;29(1):11-8. CENTRAL

Nacoti 2012 {published data only}

Nacoti M, Spagnolli E, Bonanomi E, Barbanti C, Cereda M, Fumagalli R. Sigh improves gas exchange and respiratory mechanics in children undergoing pressure support after major surgery. Minerva Anestesiologica 2012;78(8):920-9. CENTRAL [PMID: 22531559]

Nafday 2005 {published data only}

Nafday SM, Green RS, Lin J, Brion LP, Ochshorn I, Holzman IR. Is there an advantage of using pressure support ventilation with volume guarantee in the initial management of preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome? A pilot study. Journal of Perinatology 2005;25(3):193-7. CENTRAL

Nakae 1998 {published data only}

Nakae Y, Yamakage M, Horikawa D, Aimono M, Tamiya K, Namiki A. Triggering delay time and work of breathing in three paediatric patient triggered ventilators. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 1998;45(3):261-5. CENTRAL

Nikischin 1996 {published data only}

Nikischin W, Gerhardt T, Everett R, Gonzalez A, Hummler H, Bancalari E. Patient triggered ventilation: a comparison of tidal volume and chest wall and abdominal motion as trigger signals. Pediatric Pulmonology 1996;22(1):28-34. CENTRAL

Nishimura 1995 {published data only}

Nishimura M, Hess D, Kacmarek RM. The response of flow-triggered infant ventilators. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1995;152(6 Pt 1):1901-9. CENTRAL

Olsen 2002 {published data only}

Olsen SL, Thibeault DW, Truog WE. Crossover trial comparing pressure support with synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation. Journal of Perinatology 2002;22(6):461-6. CENTRAL

Osorio 2005 {published data only}

Osorio W, Claure N, D'Ugard C, Athavale K, Bancalari E. Effects of pressure support during an acute reduction of synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation in preterm infants. Journal of Perinatology 2005;25(6):412-6. CENTRAL

Patel 2009 {published data only}

Patel DS, Rafferty GF, Lee S, Hannam S, Greenough A. Work of breathing during SIMV with and without pressure support. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2009;94(6):434-6. CENTRAL [PMID: 19224888]

Polimeni 2006 {published data only}

Polimeni V, Claure N, D'Ugard C, Bancalari E. Effects of volume-targeted synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation on spontaneous episodes of hypoxemia in preterm infants. Biology of the Neonate 2006;89(1):50-5. CENTRAL

Scopesi 2007 {published data only}

Scopesi F, Calevo MG, Rolfe P, Arioni C, Traggiai C, Risso FM, et al. Volume targeted ventilation (volume guarantee) in the weaning phase of premature newborn infants. Paediatric Pulmonology 2007;42(10):864-70. CENTRAL [PMID: 17726708]

Servant 1992 {published data only}

Servant GM, Nicks JJ, Donn SM, Bandy KP, Lathrop C, Dechert RE. Feasibility of applying flow-synchronized ventilation to very low birthweight infants. Respiratory Care 1992;37:249-53. CENTRAL

Smith 1997 {published data only}

Smith KM, Walig TM, Bing DR, Georgieff MK, Boros SJ, Mammel MC. Lower respiratory rates without decreases in oxygen consumption during neonatal synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation. Intensive Care Medicine 1997;23(4):463-8. CENTRAL

Takeuchi 1994 {published data only}

Takeuchi MK, Itabashi K, Okuyama K. Efficacy of synchronized IMV on weaning neonates from the ventilator. Acta Paediatrica Japonica 1994;36(2):162-6. CENTRAL

Thiagarajan 2004 {published data only}

Thiagarajan RR, Coleman DM, Bratton SL, Watson RS, Martin LD. Inspiratory work of breathing is not decreased by flow-triggered sensing during spontaneous breathing in children receiving mechanical ventilation: a preliminary report. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 2004;5(4):375-8. CENTRAL

Upton 1990 {published data only}

Upton CJ, Milner AD, Stokes GM. The effect of changes in inspiratory time on neonatal triggered ventilation. European Journal of Pediatrics 1990;149(9):648-50. CENTRAL

Vishveshwara 1991 {published data only}

Vishveshwara N, Freeman B, Peck M, Caliwag N, Shook S, Rajani KB. Patient triggered synchronized assisted ventilation of newborns: report of a preliminary study and three years' experience. Journal of Perinatology 1991;11(4):347-54. CENTRAL

Wheeler 2012 {published data only}

Wheeler KI, Morley CJ, Hooper SB, Davis PG. Lower back-up rates improve ventilator triggering during assist-control ventilation: a randomized crossover trial. Journal of Perinatology 2012;32(2):111-6. CENTRAL [PMID: 21637192]

Greenough 1998

Greenough A, Milner AD, Dimitriou G. Synchronized mechanical ventilation for respiratory support in newborn infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1998, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000456]

Greenough 2001

Greenough A, Milner AD, Dimitriou G. Synchronized mechanical ventilation for respiratory support in newborn infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000456]

Greenough 2004

Greenough A, Milner AD, Dimitriou G. Synchronized mechanical ventilation for respiratory support in newborn infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000456.pub2]

Greenough 2008

Greenough A, Dimitriou G, Prendergast M, Milner AD. Synchronized mechanical ventilation for respiratory supporting newborn infants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000456.pub3]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Amini 2013

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised

Single centre trial

Randomisation method: block randomisation

Blinding of randomisation: unclear

Blinding of intervention: no

Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Complete follow‐up: yes

Participants

All neonates admitted to NICU with respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (respiratory failure and gestational age not defined). All infants received surfactant.

Exclusion criteria include: complex congenital heart disease, genetic syndromes, major anomalies, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy or birth asphyxia.

HFPPV 31; CMV 31

Interventions

HFPPV or CMV

Outcomes

No primary outcome stated. Outcomes reported were IVH, air leak, mortality, treatment failure, duration of mechanical ventilation, number of doses of surfactant administered, oxygen requirement at 28 days, PVL

Notes

Ventilator types: Bearcub 750 used for both interventions

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"Block randomisation"; no further details given

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"Block randomisation"; no further details given.

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Clinician aware of intervention

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No blinding possible

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Clinicians likely to be aware of intervention

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Complete follow‐up of recruited infants

Baumer 2000

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised
Multicentre trial
Randomissation method: randomly allocated by telephone
Stratified by centre. Within each centre, randomisation in blocks to ensure a similar distribution of babies in each arm of the study

Blinding of randomisation: yes
Blinding of intervention: no
Complete follow‐up: no
Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Participants

Gestational age < 32 weeks. Assisted ventilation within 72 hours of birth
Not ventilated for more than 6 hours at randomisation
RDS
Exclusion: major congenital malformation or inhalational pneumonitis
Sample size: 924
PTV: 465
CMV: 459

Interventions

PTV vs CMV

Outcomes

Primary:
Hospital mortality or need for oxygen treatment at 36 weeks of gestation; pneumothorax
cerebral ultrasound abnormality nearest to 36 weeks of gestation; duration of ventilation in survivors

Notes

Ventilator types: PTV: SLE 2000 (airway pressure trigger)
Draeger baby log 8000 (airway flow trigger)
CMV: SLE 2000, Draeger Babylog, Sechrist
423 of those randomised to PTV and 422 infants randomised to CMV had cranial ultrasound examination

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Randomly allocated by telephone"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"Within each centre, randomisation was performed in blocks"

Probably done

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

"Form of ventilation to which they were assigned from birth to final extubation"

Comment: no blinding

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

"Clinicians were allowed the discretion to change the baby from the assigned mode of ventilation"

Comment: no blinding as clinicians aware of the intervention

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: clinicians likely to be aware of the intervention

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: outcome for death (912/924); pneumothorax(922/924); cranial USS (848/924)

Beresford 2000

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised
Multicentre trial
Randomisation method: computer generated sequence hidden in sequentially numbered, opaque envelopes
Stratified by BW
Blinding of randomisation: yes
Blinding of intervention: no
Complete follow‐up: no
Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Participants

Birth weight 1000 to 2000 grams
Assisted ventilation within 24 hours of birth
RDS
Exclusion: major malformations, congenital heart disease, MAS
Sample size: 386
PTV: 193
CMV: 193

Interventions

PTV vs CMV

Outcomes

Primary:
Incidence of CLD
Secondary:
Death
Pneumothorax
IVH
Cystic PVL
Shunt insertion

Notes

Ventilator types: SLE 2000 (airway pressure trigger)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Computer generated sequence".

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"Hidden in sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes".

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

"Study design was such as to preclude crossover of treatment strategy".

Comment: clinician aware of the mode of intervention

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: clinicians aware of the intervention

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: clinicians aware of the intervention

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: complete data present

Bernstein 1996

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised
Multicenter trial
Intention‐to‐treat basis
Randomisation method: sealed, opaque envelopes. Stratified by BW

Blinding of randomisation: yes
Blinding of intervention: no
Complete follow‐up: no
Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Participants

BW > 500 grams
Assisted ventilation
Age < 36 hours
RDS, congenital pneumonia, MAS
CxR with abnormal lung parenchyma, FiO₂ > 0.4 (all BW) and MAP > 7 cmH₂O (for infants with BW > 1250 grams). Duration of CMV prior randomisation < 12 hours, spontaneous breathing rate > 20 bmp and indwelling arterial line
Exclusion: infants with air leak, seizures, IVH grade III or IV, neuromuscular disease affecting respiration, major malformations including chromosomal abnormalities, CDH, CHD (except PDA), lung hypoplasia, septic shock or severe skin disease
Sample size: 350*
SIMV: 178 (167 analysed)
CMV: 172 (160 analysed)
*23 excluded post randomisation

Interventions

SIMV vs CMV

Outcomes

Primary:
Acute effect on oxygenation
Sedative/analgesic drug requirements
Duration of ventilation
Air leaks
Secondary:
Severe IVH
Death
Need for pharmacological paralysis
ECMO or long‐term supplemental oxygen
The age at which infants undergoing long‐term ventilation (> 14 days) regained their BW

Notes

Ventilator types: Infant Star with Star Sync module (abdominal movement monitor)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Randomisation schedules were generated for each centre by computer"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"Sequenfial, opaque, sealed envelopes"

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"Intention‐to‐treat protocol"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: clinicians aware of intervention (intention‐to‐treat protocol)

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

"Data were collected prospectively"

Comment: clinicians probably aware of intervention (intention‐to‐treat protocol)

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: outcome for all participants reported

Chan 1993

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised
Single centre trial
Randomisation method: sealed, opaque envelopes
Blinding of randomisation: yes
Blinding of intervention: no
Complete follow‐up: no
Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Participants

Gestational age < 36 weeks. Age: 1 to 21 days. RDS. In the recovery stage of the respiratory disease (at 40 bpm)
Sample size: 40
PTV: 20
CMV: 20

Interventions

PTV vs CMV

Outcomes

Primary:
Hours of ventilation from entering the study until first extubation (weaning)
Secondary:
Number of infants who failed weaning
Number of infants who failed extubation

Notes

Ventilator types: SLE 2000 (airway pressure trigger), Sechrist IV‐100B

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Sealed, opaque envelopes"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Not revealed to clinician

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "protocol for weaning from ventilation was similar in both groups"

Comment: clinicians not blinded to the method of weaning.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Quote:"not possible to "blind" the clinicians"

Comment: different ventilators used for the two study groups

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: clinicians aware of intervention

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: outcome for all participants reported

Chan 1994

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised
Single centre trial
Randomisation method: sealed, opaque envelopes
Blinding of randomisation: yes
Blinding of intervention: no
Complete follow‐up: no
Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Participants

GA < 35 weeks
Age < 1 to 23 days
Weaning – loaded with aminophylline
Exclusion: apnoea, failure to trigger
Sample size: 40
SIMV: 20
CMV: 20

Interventions

PTV vs SIMV

Outcomes

Primary:
Duration of weaning
Secondary:
Number of infants who failed weaning
Number of infants who failed extubation

Notes

Ventilator types: SLE 2000 (airway pressure trigger)
CMV

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Randomised"

By sealed opaque envelope

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"Consecutively drawing cards from sealed envelope"

Comment: clinicians blinded to allocation

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"protocol for weaning from ventilation was similar in both groups"

Comment: clinicians aware of intervention

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: clinicians aware of the intervention

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: clinicians aware of intervention

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: outcome for all participants reported

Chen 1997

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised
Single centre trial
Blinding of randomisation: not stated
Blinding of intervention: no
Complete follow‐up: no
Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Participants

BW < 1.75 kg, GA < 34 weeks and RDS
Assisted ventilation
Exclusion: congenital malformation, inherited metabolic abnormalities, sepsis, treatment with muscle relaxants
Sample size: 77
SIMV: 38
CMV: 39
RDS sample size: 62
SIMV: 31
CMV: 31
MAS sample size: 15
SIMV: 7
CMV: 8
Term infants (MAS) excluded from the analysis

Interventions

SIMV vs CMV

Outcomes

Primary:

Duration of ventilation

Need of reintubation

Air leaks

PDA

IVH

Secondary:

BPD

ROP

Death

Notes

Ventilator types:
Infant Star with Star sync module (airflow trigger)
(CMV) Bear Cub

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Randomised"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Comment: the evaluator was unaware of the treatment status of the patients

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: not possible to assess

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: not possible to assess

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Comment: not possible to assess

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: outcome for all participants reported

Courtney 2002a

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised controlled multicentre study

randomised by off‐site clinical coordination centre

Participants

BW 601 to 1200 grams

appropriately developed for gestational age

< 4 hours of age and expected to require ventilation for at least 24 hours

Exclusion: if Apgar at 5 minutes < 4; a base deficit of 15 or more prior to study; severe hypotension; chromosomal or genetic abnormalities; congenital heart disease or known neuromuscular disease

Interventions

HFO with Sensormedics 3100a or SIMV with either VIP Bird, Babylog 8000, Bear Cub with neonatal monitoring or Bear Cub 750vs

Outcomes

Primary outcome: death or BPD (oxygen requirement at 36 weeks)

successful extubation

IVH, PVL, pneumothorax, PIE, pulmonary haemorrhage, bacteraemia, PDA, NEC, ROP

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Randomised by off‐site clinical coordination centre. Probably done

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Off‐site allocation

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No blinding of clinicians: different ventilators used for different arms

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No blinding possible as above

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Clinicians likely to be aware of intervention

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

10 infants from HFOV and 4 from SIMV withdrawn – data analysed until point of withdrawal

Craft 2003a

Study characteristics

Methods

Multicentre randomised controlled trial

Randomised using random number sequence with assignments in opaque sealed envelopes

Block randomisation (units of 10)

crossover to alternative method in event of failure – analysis by intention to treat

Participants

23 to 34 weeks gestation weighing < 1000 grams requiring mechanical ventilation

No exclusion criteria stated

Grouped 500 to 750 g and 750 to 1000 grams – data combined for meta‐analysis

Interventions

SIMV or high‐frequency flow interruption (HFFI)

Outcomes

Days of mechanical ventilation

Days of CPAP

days of oxygen requirement

BPD (Oxygen requirement at 36 weeks)

Airleak

PDA

Grade 3 or 4 IVH

Grade 3 or 4 ROP

Death

Notes

Infant Star ventilator. Graseby capsule used for synchronisation. Extubation when rate reduced to 8 to 12 bpm.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Infants were randomly assigned by a sealed opaque envelope, with a previously generated random number sequence"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Clinicians blinded to allocation

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Not possible to blind clinician to treatment arm

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Not possible to blind clinician to treatment arm

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Assessors likely aware of treatment arm

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Attrition unclear. Study terminated at ad‐hoc interim analysis

D'Angio 2005

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised
Single centre trial
Randomisation method: block randomisation scheme
by one of the investigators
Blinding of randomisation: yes
Blinding of intervention: no
Complete follow‐up: no
Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Participants

Ventilated infants
BW of 500 to 1249 grams
Less than six hours of age
Gestational age > 24 weeks
Sample size: 212
PRVCV: 104
SIMV: 108

Interventions

PRVCV vs SIMV

Outcomes

Primary: proportion of infants alive and extubated at 14 days
Secondary: death
Moderate/severe BPD
Air leaks
Severe IVH (grades 3 and 4)

Notes

Ventilator type: Servo 300, infants who required slow rates > 40 bpm (maximum for the Servo 300) were transferred to the BIRD VIP ventilator

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "randomly assigned "

Comment: probably done

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: probably done (Failure and Weaning protocol followed)

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Comment: clinicians likely to be aware of the intervention

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Comment: clinicians likely to be aware of the intervention

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: respiratory outcomes for all participants reported

Dimitriou 1995a

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised
Single centre trial
Randomisation method: sealed, opaque envelopes
Blinding of randomisation: yes
Blinding of intervention: no
Complete follow‐up: no
Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Participants

GA < 35 weeks
Age < 15 days
Weaning – loaded with aminophylline
Exclusion: apnoea, failure to trigger
Sample size: 40
PTV: 20
SIMV: 20

Interventions

PTV vs SIMV

Outcomes

Primary:
Duration of weaning
Secondary:
Number of infants who failed weaning
Number of infants who failed extubation

Notes

Ventilator types: SLE 2000 (airway pressure trigger)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Random selection"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"Drawing a card"

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Done as protocol followed

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: clinicians likely to be aware of the intervention

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: outcome of all trial participants reported.

Dimitriou 1995b

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised.
Single centre trial
Randomisation method: sealed, opaque envelopes
Blinding of randomisation: yes
Blinding of intervention: no
Complete follow‐up: no
Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Participants

GA < 35 weeks
Age < 15 days
Weaning – loaded with aminophylline
Exclusion: apnoea, failure to trigger
Sample size: 40
PTV: 20
SIMV: 20

Interventions

PTV vs SIMV

Outcomes

Primary:
Duration of weaning
Secondary:
Number of infants who failed weaning
Number of infants who failed extubation

Notes

Ventilator types:
SLE 2000 (airway pressure trigger)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"Random selection"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"Drawing a card"

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Done as protocol followed

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Comment: clinicians likely to be aware of the intervention

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Comment: outcome of all trial participants reported.

Donn 1994

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised
Single centre trial
Randomisation method: lottery (sampling without replacement)
Blinding of randomisation: not reported
Blinding of intervention: no
Complete follow‐up: no
Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Participants

Preterm infants.
BW between 1.1 to 1.5 kg
RDS, SRT
Sample size: 30
PTV: 15
CMV: 15

Interventions

PTV vs CMV

Outcomes

Primary:
Duration of ventilation
Secondary:
Air leaks
IVH
CLD

Notes

Ventilator types:
PTV V.I.P. BIRD (airflow trigger)
CMV Sechrist IV‐100B, V.I.P. BIRD

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Randomised"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"lottery (sampling without replacement)"

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: not possible to assess

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: outcome of all trial participants reported

Erdemir 2014

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised

Single centre trial

Sealed envelope randomisation

Participants

60 prematurely born infants 30 SIMV 30

gestation < 33 weeks or birth weight < 1500 grams requiring mechanical ventilation for RDS

Exclusion criteria:

admission after 6 hours of age

congenital cardiac, respiratory or CNS malformation

congenital metabolic disease

congenital pneumonia or sepsis

perinatal asphyxia

leak around ET tube of < 20%

Interventions

Received surfactant placed on PTV, then randomised to SIMV or PSV + VG when FiO₂ < 0.4, RR < 60, PIP 16 cmH₂O, PEEP 4 cmH₂O with adequate blood gases

Outcomes

Duration of weaning

time to extubation

PIP, MAP, Vt, RR at start, during and at end of weaning

Notes

58 recruited, 45 reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

"Sealed envelope randomisation": sequence generation unclear

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"Sealed envelope randomisation"

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No blinding

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No blinding

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No blinding

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

All outcomes reported for all participants

Heicher 1981

Study characteristics

Methods

Quasi‐randomised
Single centre trial
Patients alternatively assigned to one of the two study ventilatory modes
Blinding of randomisation: no
Blinding of intervention: no
Complete follow‐up: no
Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Participants

Birth weight > 750 grams. No gross anomalies. Abnormal lung fields on chest radiograph. Respiratory distress syndrome, pneumonia
Exclusion: infants with chromosomal abnormalities or meconium aspiration
Sample size: 102
Rapid rates: 51
Slow rates: 51

Interventions

HFPPV. Rapid rates (60 bpm) with IT: 0.5 sec versus slow rates (20 to 40 bpm) with IT: 1sec

Outcomes

Clinical improvement

Need for pharmacological paralysis

Hours of assisted ventilation

Hours of FiO₂ > 0.6. CLD

Mortality

Notes

Ventilator types: Baby Bird, Bird Co

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Quote: "were alternately assigned"

Comment: not randomised

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

Comment: assigned not randomised

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote:"remained constant throughout the study period"

Comment: probably done

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: probably not done

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: outcomes reported for all trial participants

Liu 2011

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised trial

Single centre

Randomisation method: random number table

Blinding of randomisation: unclear

Blinding of intervention: no

Complete follow‐up: yes

Blinding of outcome measurement: not clear

Participants

GA < 35 weeks

Mechanical ventilation

RDS

Age < 12 hours old

Arterial blood gas pH < 7.25; PaO₂ < 50mmHg; PaCO₂ > 50 mmHg

PaO₂/FiO₂ ≤ 250 mmHg; a/APO₂ ≤ 0.22

Exclusion criteria: congenital lung abnormalities, pulmonary haemorrhage, pneumothorax, congenital pneumonia, meconium aspiration, wet lung, complex congenital heart disease, grade 3/4 intracranial haemorrhage

Sample size: 84

SIPPV + VG: 31

CMV: 30

HFOV: 23

Interventions

SIPPV +VG vs CMV vs HFOV

Outcomes

Primary:

Duration of mechanical ventilation

Oxygenation status

Secondary:

Death

Air leak

Ventilation associated pneumonia

Intraventricular haemorrhage (Grade 3/4)

Notes

Ventilator types: Babylog 8000 plus, Sensormedics 3100 A

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Comment: random number table used

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

Comment: probably not used

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: probably not done

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: probably not done

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: probably not done

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: outcomes of all participants reported.

OCTAVE 1991

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised
Multicentre trial
Randomisation method: sealed, opaque envelopes
Blinding of randomisation: yes
Blinding of intervention: no
Complete follow‐up: yes
Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Participants

Age < 72 hours. Assisted ventilation
Exclusion: meconium aspiration
Sample size: 346
HFPPV: 174
CMV: 172

Interventions

HFPPV (60 bpm) versus CMV (20 to 40 bpm)

Outcomes

Incidence of pneumothorax
Incidence and severity of CLD
Mortality
Neurodevelopmental outcome

Notes

Ventilator type: Sechrist IV 100B

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "random assignment"

Comment: probably done

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Quote: "sealed,opaque, serially numbered envelope"

Comment: probably done

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: clinicians probably aware of the intervention

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: clinicians probably aware of the intervention

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: short‐term outcome reported for all participants

Patel 2012

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised

Single centre study

Randomisation: sequential opaque sealed envelopes with contents generated by random number table

Randomised at initiation of weaning ventilation

Participants

Ventilated, less than 14 days old excluding: congenital heart disease or HIE

Evaluation of weaning: randomised when FiO₂ < 0.4; PIP ≤ 20 cmH₂O if ≥ 29 weeks' gestation; ≤ 17 cmH₂O if between 26 and 29 weeks' gestation; or ≤ 15 cmH₂O if ≤ 26 weeks' gestation

18 ACV, 18 PSV

Interventions

ACV Vs PSV (backup 40 bpm, trigger 0.6 to 1.0 litre/min)

Outcomes

Duration of weaning, time to extubation

Notes

All infants ventilated with SLE5000

Data in paper expressed as median and range

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Patients were randomised using a sequential opaque sealed envelope system, the contents having been determined by random number table generation": low risk

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

As above; block allocation with six in each block

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

No blinding of clinician. Analysis by intention to treat

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No blinding

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No blinding

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Not all short term outcomes measured at all time points, but relevant outcomes reported for all participants

Pohlandt 1992

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised (with stratification for gestational age)
Method of randomisation: random number table.
Blinding of randomisation: not reported
Blinding of intervention: no
Complete follow‐up: no
Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Participants

Gestational age < 32 weeks
Assisted ventilation
Supplemental FiO₂ > 0.4
Sample size: 181
HFPPV: 91
CMV: 90

Interventions

HFPPV (60 bpm with IT: 0.3 sec) vs CMV (30 to 40 bpm with IT: 1 sec)

Outcomes

Incidence of extra‐alveolar air leaks

Mortality

Notes

Ventilator types: AIV Loosco MKII, Biomed MVP 10, Babylog‐Draeger, Sechrist IV‐100B, Siemens Servo‐B and Servo‐C, Stephan
181 infants were enrolled into the study, but only 137 fulfilled the criteria and their results were analysed

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Quote: "random number table"

Comment: probably not followed

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

Comment: probably not done

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: clinicians probably aware of the intervention

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: probably not done

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: primary outcomes of all participants reported

Reyes 2006

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised
Single centre
Randomisation method: sequential
Sealed opaque envelopes from a computer‐generated randomised list
Blinding of randomisation: no
Complete follow‐up: yes
Blinding of outcome measurement: no

Participants

Birth weight 500 to 1000 grams
appropriate birth weight for gestational age
Mechanical ventilation requirement < 12 hours after birth until 7 days
Exclusion: congenital anomalies; neuromuscular disease; lung hypoplasia; congenital heart disease; hypotension requiring intravenous medication; PIE or pneumothorax; required HFOV > 24 hours; received sedation or muscle relaxation
Sample size: 107
53: SIMV plus PS
54: SIMV

Interventions

SIMV plus PS versus SIMV

Outcomes

Primary:
Proportion of infants requiring supplementary oxygen at 28 days
Secondary:
Death
Air leaks
BPD
IVH (Grades III and IV)
(Grade III and IVH)

Notes

Ventilator type:
Pressure‐limited flow triggered VIP ventilator

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Quote: "Block randomisation"

Comment: probably done

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

Comment: probably not followed

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Quote: "study protocol was actively followed"

Comment: probably done

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Quote: "Caregivers were not blinded to the assigned modality"

Comment: not followed

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Comment: clinicians probably aware of the intervention

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Comment: outcomes of all trial participants reported

Singh 2012

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised controlled single centre study

Randomisation: web‐based random number generator generated allocation sequence, which was placed in sequential sealed opaque envelopes

Participants

preterm neonates

requiring mechanical ventilation

excluding: BW < 750 grams; major congenital anomaly; perinatal asphyxia; shock; prior air leak

If did not undergo 24 hours of ventilation the patient was excluded from analysis

66 HFO, 84 SIMV

Interventions

SIMV or HFOV

Outcomes

FiO₂, MAP, OI at 1, 6 and 24 hours

Duration of ventilation

Oxygen dependency at 28 days

Hospital stay

Survival

IVH, PVL, PDA, ROP, pulmonary haemorrhage, ventilator associated pneumonia

Notes

SIMV delivered with SLE2000, HFOV with Draeger Babylog 8000

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Simple randomisation using a web‐based random number generator ": probably done

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"slip of paper bearing the intervention was kept in serially numbered opaque sealed envelopes": probably done

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No blinding

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No blinding

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No blinding

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

HFOV arm 17 died/left study; SIMV 23 died/left study

Sun 2014

Study characteristics

Methods

Randomised single centre study

computer‐generated randomisation after consent

stratified by sex and gestational age

Participants

admitted to NICU with gestational age < 32 weeks; birth weight < 1500 grams;

requiring mechanical ventilation for respiratory distress syndrome with PaO₂/FiO₂ < 200 mmHg

exclusion: genetic metabolic diseases; congenital abnormalities; pneumothorax or grade III or IV IVH prior to randomisation

randomised: 336 — 184 to SIMV, 182 to HFOV

Interventions

SIMV + PS vs HFOV

Outcomes

Primary outcome: mortality and BPD

Secondary outcomes: days of mechanical ventilation; hospital stay; surfactant requirement; ROP; pulmonary haemorrhage; PDA; NEC; pneumothorax. Moderate or severe disability at 18 months

Notes

SLE5000 and Servo‐i ventilators

not analysed: 41 in SIMV, 37 in HFOV group

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Computer‐generated randomisation plan": probably done

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Randomisation stratified by centre, by sex and gestational age using variable block size block randomisation: probably done

Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Different ventilators used, no blinding

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Different ventilators used, no blinding

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Different ventilators used, no blinding

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

High risk for long‐term outcomes with approximately 30% lost to follow‐up

Low risk for short‐term outcomes

ACV: assist control ventilation
BPD: bronchopulmonary dysplasia
BW: birth weight
CDH: congenital diaphragmatic hernia
CHD: congenital heart disease
CLD: chronic lung disease
CMV: conventional mechanical ventilation
CPAP: continuous positive airway pressure
ECMO: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
GA: gestational age
HFO: high‐frequency oscillation
HFOV: high frequency oscillatory ventilation
HFPPV: high‐frequency positive pressure ventilation
IT: inspiratory time
IVH: intraventricular haemorrhage
MAP: mean airway pressure
MAS: meconium aspiration syndrome
NEC: necrotising enterocolitis
OI: oxygenation index
PDA: patent ductus arteriosus
PIE: pulmonary interstitial emphysema
PIP: peak inspiratory pressure
PRVCV: pressure‐regulated volume control ventilation
PS: pressure support
PTV: patient‐triggered ventilation
PVL: periventricular leukomalacia
RDS: respiratory distress syndrome
ROP: retinopathy of prematurity
SIMV: synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation
SRT: surfactant replacement therapy
VG: volume guarantee

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Abd El‐Moneim 2005

Short‐term cross over study

Abubakar 2005

Randomised short‐term cross over study

Amitay 1993

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Bernstein 1993

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Bitondo 2012

Adult crossover study of PSV controlled automatically or by clinician

Chan 1993b

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Cheema 2001

Short‐term comparison of volume guarantee synchronised ventilation to PTV or SIMV

Clavieras 2013

Adult study comparing methods of pressure support

Cleary 1995

Acute effects of synchronised ventilation

Dani 2006

Short‐term randomised comparison of PSV with VG to HFOV

de la Oliva 2012

Non‐randomised cross‐over study in the paediatric population

De Luca 2009

Cross over trial comparing ACV in time‐cycled and flow‐cycled modality

deBoer 1993

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Dimitriou 1998

Comparison of triggering devices

Duman 2012

Comparison of volume targeting vs pressure limited ventilation in one mode of triggered ventilation

Durand 2001

Randomised pilot study comparing HFOV to SIMV

Estay 2009

Assess the effects of flow sensor dead space during SIMV

Firme 2005

Randomised short‐term cross‐over study

Friedlich 1999

Nasopharyngeal SIMV versus CPAP

Greenough 1986

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Greenough 1987a

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Greenough 1987b

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Greenough 1988a

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Greenough 1988b

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Greenough 1991

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Gupta 2008

Quasi‐experimental cross‐over study

Guthrie 2005

Randomised short‐term comparison of SIMV and mandatory minute volume

Guven 2013

Comparison of volume guarantee versus pressure‐limited ventilation in one mode of triggered ventilation

Herrera 2002

Acute effects of volume‐guaranteed SIMV

Hird 1990a

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Hird 1990b

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Hird 1991a

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Hird 1991b

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Hird 1991c

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Hird 1991d

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Hummler 1996

Acute effects of synchronised ventilation

Hummler 1997

Acute effects of mechanical ventilation

Hummler 2006

Randomised short‐term cross‐over study

Jaber 2005

Randomised short‐term cross‐over comparison of PSV and volume support ventilation

Jarreau 1996

Acute outcome of synchronised ventilation

John 1994

Comparison of triggering devices

Kapasi 2001

Short‐term randomised comparison of ventilation modes

Keszler 2004

Short‐term randomised comparison of ventilation modes with ACV with or without volume guarantee

Laubscher 1997

Comparison of triggering devices

Lista 2006

Acute effects of different levels of volume targeting during synchronised intermittent positive pressure ventilation within the context of a randomised trial

Luyt 2001

Acute effects of PTV and conventional ventilation compared within the context of a randomised trial

McCallion 2007

Observational study studying the effects of spontaneous breathing, triggered and untriggered inflations

Migliori 2003

Non randomised comparison of pressure support synchronised ventilation and SIMV

Mitchell 1989

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Mizuno 1994

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Moretti 1999

Nasal SIPPV to nasal CPAP

Mrozek 2000

Randomised comparison (short‐term) of volume‐targeted synchronised ventilation and CMV

Nacoti 2012

Paediatric study comparing PSV to PSV with sighs. Non‐randomised.

Nafday 2005

Randomised comparison (short‐term) of pressure support with volume guarantee

Nakae 1998

Comparison of triggering devices

Nikischin 1996

Comparison of triggering devices

Nishimura 1995

Comparison of triggering devices

Olsen 2002

Cross‐over trial comparing pressure support with volume guarantee synchronised ventilation to SIMV

Osorio 2005

Cross‐over short‐term comparison of SIMV with or without pressure support

Patel 2009

Cross‐over trial comparing SIMV and SIMV with pressure support

Polimeni 2006

Short‐term cross‐over study

Scopesi 2007

Short‐term cross‐over study

Servant 1992

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Smith 1997

Acute outcome of synchronised ventilation

Takeuchi 1994

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Thiagarajan 2004

Comparison of triggering devices

Upton 1990

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Vishveshwara 1991

Not assigned respiratory support mode by randomisation

Wheeler 2012

Randomised cross‐over trial to study the effects of differing back up rates within one mode of triggered ventilation

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. HFPPV vs CMV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 Death Show forest plot

4

647

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.61, 1.00]

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 1: Death

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 1: Death

1.2 Air leaks Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 2: Air leaks

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 2: Air leaks

1.2.1 Pneumothorax

3

585

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.51, 0.93]

1.2.2 Pulmonary interstitial emphysema

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.49, 0.94]

1.3 Total air leak Show forest plot

1

62

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.06, 1.08]

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 3: Total air leak

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 3: Total air leak

1.4 BPD (oxygen dependency at 28 days) Show forest plot

4

647

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.77, 1.46]

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 4: BPD (oxygen dependency at 28 days)

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 4: BPD (oxygen dependency at 28 days)

1.5 IVH Show forest plot

1

62

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.02, 0.94]

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 5: IVH

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 5: IVH

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. ACV/SIMV vs CMV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

2.1 Death Show forest plot

6

1790

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.17 [0.94, 1.47]

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 1: Death

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 1: Death

2.2 Air leaks Show forest plot

7

1830

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.76, 1.27]

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 2: Air leaks

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 2: Air leaks

2.3 Duration of ventilation (hours) Show forest plot

5

1463

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐38.30 [‐53.90, ‐22.69]

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 3: Duration of ventilation (hours)

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 3: Duration of ventilation (hours)

2.4 Extubation failure Show forest plot

4

1056

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.68, 1.28]

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 4: Extubation failure

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 4: Extubation failure

2.5 Severe IVH Show forest plot

6

1790

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.73, 1.40]

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 5: Severe IVH

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 5: Severe IVH

2.6 BPD (oxygen dependency at 28 days) Show forest plot

4

805

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.75, 1.12]

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 6: BPD (oxygen dependency at 28 days)

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 6: BPD (oxygen dependency at 28 days)

2.7 Moderate/Severe BPD (oxygen dependent at 36 weeks PCA) Show forest plot

2

1310

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.75, 1.08]

Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 7: Moderate/Severe BPD (oxygen dependent at 36 weeks PCA)

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 7: Moderate/Severe BPD (oxygen dependent at 36 weeks PCA)

Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

3.1 Death Show forest plot

4

996

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.25 [0.91, 1.71]

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 1: Death

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 1: Death

3.2 BPD: oxygen requirement at 28 days Show forest plot

1

110

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.21 [0.37, 27.83]

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 2: BPD: oxygen requirement at 28 days

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 2: BPD: oxygen requirement at 28 days

3.3 Moderate/ Severe BPD: Oxygen requirement at 36 weeks PCA Show forest plot

3

869

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.33 [1.07, 1.65]

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 3: Moderate/ Severe BPD: Oxygen requirement at 36 weeks PCA

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 3: Moderate/ Severe BPD: Oxygen requirement at 36 weeks PCA

3.4 Death or BPD Show forest plot

1

356

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.38 [1.41, 4.03]

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 4: Death or BPD

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 4: Death or BPD

3.5 Duration of mechanical ventilation Show forest plot

2

466

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.89 [1.04, 2.74]

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 5: Duration of mechanical ventilation

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 5: Duration of mechanical ventilation

3.6 Air leaks Show forest plot

3

1398

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.70, 1.19]

Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 6: Air leaks

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 6: Air leaks

3.6.1 Pulmonary interstitial emphysema

1

498

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.44, 0.99]

3.6.2 Pneumothorax

3

900

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.82, 1.64]

3.7 IVH Grade 3/4 Show forest plot

4

1010

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.71, 1.24]

Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 7: IVH Grade 3/4

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 7: IVH Grade 3/4

Open in table viewer
Comparison 4. ACV vs SIMV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

4.1 Duration of weaning (hours) Show forest plot

3

120

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐42.38 [‐94.35, 9.60]

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 1: Duration of weaning (hours)

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 1: Duration of weaning (hours)

4.2 Weaning failure Show forest plot

3

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.31, 1.93]

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 2: Weaning failure

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 2: Weaning failure

4.3 Extubation failure Show forest plot

3

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.37, 2.67]

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 3: Extubation failure

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 3: Extubation failure

4.4 Air leaks Show forest plot

3

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.23, 2.83]

Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 4: Air leaks

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 4: Air leaks

4.4.1 Total air leaks

3

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.23, 2.83]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 5. PS + SIMV versus SIMV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

5.1 Death Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 1: Death

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 1: Death

5.1.1 Death during first 28 days

1

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.08, 2.01]

5.1.2 Death prior to discharge

1

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.31, 2.43]

5.2 Air leaks Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 2: Air leaks

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 2: Air leaks

5.2.1 Pneumothorax

1

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

5.2.2 Pulmonary interstitial emphysema

1

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.25, 2.15]

5.3 BPD Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 3: BPD

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 3: BPD

5.3.1 BPD (oxygen dependency at 28 days)

1

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.84, 1.23]

5.3.2 Moderate/Severe BPD (oxygen dependency at 36 weeks PMA)

1

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.42, 1.18]

5.4 Severe IVH (grade III and IV) Show forest plot

1

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.41, 2.08]

Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 4: Severe IVH (grade III and IV)

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 4: Severe IVH (grade III and IV)

Open in table viewer
Comparison 6. PRVCV vs SIMV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

6.1 Death prior to discharge Show forest plot

1

211

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.50, 2.11]

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 1: Death prior to discharge

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 1: Death prior to discharge

6.2 BPD: oxygen requirement at 36 weeks in survivors Show forest plot

1

185

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.55, 1.27]

Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 2: BPD: oxygen requirement at 36 weeks in survivors

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 2: BPD: oxygen requirement at 36 weeks in survivors

6.3 Air leak Show forest plot

1

424

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.51, 2.13]

Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 3: Air leak

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 3: Air leak

6.3.1 PIE

1

212

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.66 [0.56, 4.91]

6.3.2 Pneumothorax

1

212

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.26, 1.88]

6.4 Severe IVH Show forest plot

1

203

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.29, 1.58]

Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 4: Severe IVH

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 4: Severe IVH

Open in table viewer
Comparison 7. PSV vs SIMV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

7.1 Duration of weaning Show forest plot

1

60

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐11.30 [‐26.53, 3.93]

Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 1: Duration of weaning

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 1: Duration of weaning

7.2 Extubation failure Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.57, 2.07]

Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 2: Extubation failure

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 2: Extubation failure

7.3 Air leaks (total) Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.01, 4.00]

Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 3: Air leaks (total)

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 3: Air leaks (total)

7.4 Moderate/Severe BPD: oxygen requirement at 36 weeks PCA Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.46, 2.17]

Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 4: Moderate/Severe BPD: oxygen requirement at 36 weeks PCA

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 4: Moderate/Severe BPD: oxygen requirement at 36 weeks PCA

Open in table viewer
Comparison 8. ACV versus PSV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

8.1 Duration of weaning Show forest plot

1

Other data

No numeric data

Analysis 8.1

Duration of weaning

Study

Participants

Duration of weaning ACV (Median (range))

Duration of weaning PSV (Median(range))

Significance

Patel 2012

36

34 (7‐100)

27 (10‐169)

p=0.88



Comparison 8: ACV versus PSV, Outcome 1: Duration of weaning

Study flow diagram: review update

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram: review update

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 1: Death

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 1: Death

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 2: Air leaks

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 2: Air leaks

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 3: Total air leak

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 3: Total air leak

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 4: BPD (oxygen dependency at 28 days)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 4: BPD (oxygen dependency at 28 days)

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 5: IVH

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1: HFPPV vs CMV, Outcome 5: IVH

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 1: Death

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 1: Death

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 2: Air leaks

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 2: Air leaks

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 3: Duration of ventilation (hours)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 3: Duration of ventilation (hours)

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 4: Extubation failure

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 4: Extubation failure

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 5: Severe IVH

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 5: Severe IVH

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 6: BPD (oxygen dependency at 28 days)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 6: BPD (oxygen dependency at 28 days)

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 7: Moderate/Severe BPD (oxygen dependent at 36 weeks PCA)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2: ACV/SIMV vs CMV, Outcome 7: Moderate/Severe BPD (oxygen dependent at 36 weeks PCA)

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 1: Death

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 1: Death

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 2: BPD: oxygen requirement at 28 days

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 2: BPD: oxygen requirement at 28 days

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 3: Moderate/ Severe BPD: Oxygen requirement at 36 weeks PCA

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 3: Moderate/ Severe BPD: Oxygen requirement at 36 weeks PCA

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 4: Death or BPD

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 4: Death or BPD

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 5: Duration of mechanical ventilation

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 5: Duration of mechanical ventilation

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 6: Air leaks

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 6: Air leaks

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 7: IVH Grade 3/4

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3: SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV, Outcome 7: IVH Grade 3/4

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 1: Duration of weaning (hours)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 1: Duration of weaning (hours)

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 2: Weaning failure

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 2: Weaning failure

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 3: Extubation failure

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 3: Extubation failure

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 4: Air leaks

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4: ACV vs SIMV, Outcome 4: Air leaks

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 1: Death

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 1: Death

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 2: Air leaks

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 2: Air leaks

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 3: BPD

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 3: BPD

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 4: Severe IVH (grade III and IV)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5: PS + SIMV versus SIMV, Outcome 4: Severe IVH (grade III and IV)

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 1: Death prior to discharge

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 1: Death prior to discharge

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 2: BPD: oxygen requirement at 36 weeks in survivors

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 2: BPD: oxygen requirement at 36 weeks in survivors

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 3: Air leak

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 3: Air leak

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 4: Severe IVH

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6: PRVCV vs SIMV, Outcome 4: Severe IVH

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 1: Duration of weaning

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 1: Duration of weaning

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 2: Extubation failure

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 2: Extubation failure

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 3: Air leaks (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 3: Air leaks (total)

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 4: Moderate/Severe BPD: oxygen requirement at 36 weeks PCA

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7: PSV vs SIMV, Outcome 4: Moderate/Severe BPD: oxygen requirement at 36 weeks PCA

Duration of weaning

Study

Participants

Duration of weaning ACV (Median (range))

Duration of weaning PSV (Median(range))

Significance

Patel 2012

36

34 (7‐100)

27 (10‐169)

p=0.88

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8: ACV versus PSV, Outcome 1: Duration of weaning

Comparison 1. HFPPV vs CMV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 Death Show forest plot

4

647

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.61, 1.00]

1.2 Air leaks Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.2.1 Pneumothorax

3

585

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.51, 0.93]

1.2.2 Pulmonary interstitial emphysema

1

137

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.49, 0.94]

1.3 Total air leak Show forest plot

1

62

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.06, 1.08]

1.4 BPD (oxygen dependency at 28 days) Show forest plot

4

647

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.77, 1.46]

1.5 IVH Show forest plot

1

62

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.02, 0.94]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. HFPPV vs CMV
Comparison 2. ACV/SIMV vs CMV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

2.1 Death Show forest plot

6

1790

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.17 [0.94, 1.47]

2.2 Air leaks Show forest plot

7

1830

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.76, 1.27]

2.3 Duration of ventilation (hours) Show forest plot

5

1463

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐38.30 [‐53.90, ‐22.69]

2.4 Extubation failure Show forest plot

4

1056

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.68, 1.28]

2.5 Severe IVH Show forest plot

6

1790

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.01 [0.73, 1.40]

2.6 BPD (oxygen dependency at 28 days) Show forest plot

4

805

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.75, 1.12]

2.7 Moderate/Severe BPD (oxygen dependent at 36 weeks PCA) Show forest plot

2

1310

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.90 [0.75, 1.08]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. ACV/SIMV vs CMV
Comparison 3. SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

3.1 Death Show forest plot

4

996

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.25 [0.91, 1.71]

3.2 BPD: oxygen requirement at 28 days Show forest plot

1

110

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.21 [0.37, 27.83]

3.3 Moderate/ Severe BPD: Oxygen requirement at 36 weeks PCA Show forest plot

3

869

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.33 [1.07, 1.65]

3.4 Death or BPD Show forest plot

1

356

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.38 [1.41, 4.03]

3.5 Duration of mechanical ventilation Show forest plot

2

466

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.89 [1.04, 2.74]

3.6 Air leaks Show forest plot

3

1398

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.70, 1.19]

3.6.1 Pulmonary interstitial emphysema

1

498

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.44, 0.99]

3.6.2 Pneumothorax

3

900

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.15 [0.82, 1.64]

3.7 IVH Grade 3/4 Show forest plot

4

1010

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.71, 1.24]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. SIMV or SIMV + PS vs HFOV
Comparison 4. ACV vs SIMV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

4.1 Duration of weaning (hours) Show forest plot

3

120

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐42.38 [‐94.35, 9.60]

4.2 Weaning failure Show forest plot

3

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.31, 1.93]

4.3 Extubation failure Show forest plot

3

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.37, 2.67]

4.4 Air leaks Show forest plot

3

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.23, 2.83]

4.4.1 Total air leaks

3

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.80 [0.23, 2.83]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. ACV vs SIMV
Comparison 5. PS + SIMV versus SIMV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

5.1 Death Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1.1 Death during first 28 days

1

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.08, 2.01]

5.1.2 Death prior to discharge

1

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.31, 2.43]

5.2 Air leaks Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.2.1 Pneumothorax

1

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

5.2.2 Pulmonary interstitial emphysema

1

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.25, 2.15]

5.3 BPD Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.3.1 BPD (oxygen dependency at 28 days)

1

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.84, 1.23]

5.3.2 Moderate/Severe BPD (oxygen dependency at 36 weeks PMA)

1

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.71 [0.42, 1.18]

5.4 Severe IVH (grade III and IV) Show forest plot

1

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.41, 2.08]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. PS + SIMV versus SIMV
Comparison 6. PRVCV vs SIMV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

6.1 Death prior to discharge Show forest plot

1

211

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.50, 2.11]

6.2 BPD: oxygen requirement at 36 weeks in survivors Show forest plot

1

185

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.55, 1.27]

6.3 Air leak Show forest plot

1

424

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.51, 2.13]

6.3.1 PIE

1

212

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.66 [0.56, 4.91]

6.3.2 Pneumothorax

1

212

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.26, 1.88]

6.4 Severe IVH Show forest plot

1

203

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.29, 1.58]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. PRVCV vs SIMV
Comparison 7. PSV vs SIMV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

7.1 Duration of weaning Show forest plot

1

60

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐11.30 [‐26.53, 3.93]

7.2 Extubation failure Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.57, 2.07]

7.3 Air leaks (total) Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.01, 4.00]

7.4 Moderate/Severe BPD: oxygen requirement at 36 weeks PCA Show forest plot

1

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.00 [0.46, 2.17]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. PSV vs SIMV
Comparison 8. ACV versus PSV

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

8.1 Duration of weaning Show forest plot

1

Other data

No numeric data

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 8. ACV versus PSV