In medical patients with sepsis, early enteral pharmaconutrition with glutamine dipeptides, vitamin C and E, beta-carotene, selenium, zinc, and butyrate in combination with an immunonutrition formula results in significantly faster recovery of organ function compared with control.
IntroductionTo compare the safety and efficacy of high frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) with conventional mechanical ventilation (CV) for early intervention in adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a multi-centre randomized trial in four intensive care units was conducted.MethodsPatients with ARDS were randomized to receive either HFOV or CV. In both treatment arms a priority was given to maintain lung volume while minimizing peak pressures. CV ventilation strategy was aimed at reducing tidal volumes. In the HFOV group, an open lung strategy was used. Respiratory and circulatory parameters were recorded and clinical outcome was determined at 30 days of follow up.ResultsThe study was prematurely stopped. Thirty-seven patients received HFOV and 24 patients CV (average APACHE II score 21 and 20, oxygenation index 25 and 18 and duration of mechanical ventilation prior to randomization 2.1 and 1.5 days, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in survival without supplemental oxygen or on ventilator, mortality, therapy failure, or crossover. Adjustment by a priori defined baseline characteristics showed an odds ratio of 0.80 (95% CI 0.22–2.97) for survival without oxygen or on ventilator, and an odds ratio for mortality of 1.15 (95% CI 0.43–3.10) for HFOV compared with CV. The response of the oxygenation index (OI) to treatment did not differentiate between survival and death. In the HFOV group the OI response was significantly higher than in the CV group between the first and the second day. A post hoc analysis suggested that there was a relatively better treatment effect of HFOV compared with CV in patients with a higher baseline OI.ConclusionNo significant differences were observed, but this trial only had power to detect major differences in survival without oxygen or on ventilator. In patients with ARDS and higher baseline OI, however, there might be a treatment benefit of HFOV over CV. More research is needed to establish the efficacy of HFOV in the treatment of ARDS. We suggest that future studies are designed to allow for informative analysis in patients with higher OI.
IntroductionData that provide clinical criteria for the identification of patients likely to respond to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) are scarce. Our aim was to describe physiological predictors of survival during HFOV in adults with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) admitted to a respiratory failure center in the United Kingdom.MethodsElectronic records of 102 adults treated with HFOV were reviewed retrospectively. We used logistic regression and receiving-operator characteristics curve to test associations with oxygenation and mortality.ResultsPatients had severe ARDS with a mean (SD) Murray's score of 2.98 (0.7). Partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio and oxygenation index improved only in survivors. The earliest time point at which the two groups differed was at three hours after commencing HFOV. An improvement of >38% in PaO2/FiO2 occurring at any time within the first 72 hours, was the best predictor of survival at 30 days (area under the curve (AUC) of 0.83, sensitivity 93%, specificity 78% and a positive likelihood ratio (LR) of 4.3). These patients also had a 3.5 fold greater reduction in partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (PaCO2). Multivariate analysis showed that HFOV was more effective in younger patients, when instituted early, and in patients with milder respiratory acidosis.ConclusionsHFOV is effective in improving oxygenation in adults with ARDS, particularly when instituted early. Changes in PaO2/FiO2 during the first three hours of HFOV can identify those patients more likely to survive.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.