This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is backed by sound physiologic rationale, but clinical data on the elective use of HFOV have been largely disappointing. Nonetheless, HFOV is still occasionally used as a rescue mode in patients with severe hypoxemia. The evidence that supports this practice is sparse.
METHODS: This was a retrospective single-center analysis that involved subjects admitted to the medical ICU at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. We included all adult patients (ages > 18 y) who received rescue HFOV between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018, and analyzed their clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 48 subjects were included in the analysis. The most common primary diagnosis was pneumonia (n = 33 [68.8%]), followed by aspiration (n = 6 [12.5%]) and diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (n = 2 [4.2%]). Switching to HFOV improved oxygenation but also increased vasopressor requirements at 3 h. The mortality rate of the study population was 92% (44/48).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study did not support utilization of HFOV as a “last-ditch” rescue measure in subjects with respiratory failure. The delayed timing of HFOV initiation and its detrimental hemodynamic effects are among the potential reasons for the high mortality rate.
Footnotes
- Correspondence: Eduardo Mireles-Cabodevila MD, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44915. E-mail: mirelee{at}ccf.org
- Copyright © 2021 by Daedalus Enterprises
Pay Per Article - You may access this article (from the computer you are currently using) for 1 day for US$30.00
Regain Access - You can regain access to a recent Pay per Article purchase if your access period has not yet expired.
Log in using your username and password
