The effect of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation combined with tracheal gas insufflation on extravascular lung water in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized, crossover, physiologic study

The Physiological Basis of High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation and Current Evidence in Adults and Children: A Narrative Review

High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is a type of invasive mechanical ventilation that employs supra-physiologic respiratory rates and low tidal volumes (V_T) that approximate the anatomic deadspace. During HFOV, mean airway pressure is set and gas is then displaced towards and away from the patient through a piston. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is cleared based on the power (amplitude) setting and frequency, with lower frequencies resulting in higher V_T and CO₂ clearance. Airway pressure amplitude is significantly attenuated throughout the respiratory system and mechanical strain and stress on the alveoli are theoretically minimized. HFOV has been purported as a form of lung protective ventilation that minimizes volutrauma, atelectrauma, and biotrauma. Following two large randomized controlled trials showing no benefit and harm, respectively, HFOV has largely been abandoned in adults with ARDS. A multi-center clinical trial in children is ongoing. This article aims to review the physiologic rationale for the use of HFOV in patients with acute respiratory failure, summarize relevant bench and animal models, and discuss the potential use of HFOV as a primary and rescue mode in adults and children with severe respiratory failure.

"Low-" versus "high"-frequency oscillation and right ventricular function in ARDS. A randomized crossover study

Background

Recent, large trials of high-frequency oscillation (HFO) versus conventional ventilation (CV) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) reported negative results. This could be explained by an HFO-induced right ventricular (RV) dysfunction/failure due to high intrathoracic pressures and hypercapnia. We hypothesized that HFO strategies aimed at averting/attenuating hypercapnia, such as "low-frequency" (i.e., 4 Hz) HFO and 4-Hz HFO with tracheal-gas insufflation (HFO-TGI), may result in an improved RV function relative to "high-frequency" (i.e., 7 Hz) HFO (which may promote hypercapnia) and similar RV function relative to lung protective CV.

Methods

We studied 17 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS [PaO₂-to-inspiratory O₂ fraction ratio (PaO₂/FiO₂) < 150]. RV function was assessed by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Patients received 60 min of CV for TEE-guided, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) "optimization" and subsequent stabilization; 60 min of 4-Hz HFO for "study mean airway pressure (mPaw)" titration to peripheral oxygen saturation ≥ 95%, without worsening RV function as assessed by TEE; 60 min of each tested HFO strategy in random order; and another 60 min of CV using the pre-HFO, TEE-guided PEEP setting. Study measurements (i.e., gas exchange, hemodynamics, and TEE data) were obtained over the last 10 min of pre-HFO CV, of each one of the three tested HFO strategies, and of post-HFO CV.

Results

The mean "study HFO mPaw" was 8-10 cmH₂O higher relative to pre-HFO CV. Seven-Hz HFO versus 4-Hz HFO and 4-Hz HFO-TGI resulted in higher mean ± SD right-to-left ventricular end-diastolic area ratio (RVEDA/LVEDA) (0.64 ± 0.15 versus 0.56 ± 0.14 and 0.52 ± 0.10, respectively, both p < 0.05). Higher diastolic/systolic eccentricity indexes (1.33 ± 0.19/1.42 ± 0.17 versus 1.21 ± 0.10/1.26 ± 0.10 and 1.17 ± 0.11/1.17 ± 0.13, respectively, all p < 0.05). Seven-Hz HFO resulted in 18-28% higher PaCO₂ relative to all other ventilatory strategies (all p < 0.05). Four-Hz HFO-TGI versus pre-HFO CV resulted in 15% lower RVEDA/LVEDA, and 7%/10% lower diastolic/systolic eccentricity indexes (all p < 0.05). Mean PaO₂/FiO₂ improved by 77-80% during HFO strategies versus CV (all p < 0.05). Mean cardiac index varied by ≤ 10% among strategies. Percent changes in PaCO₂ among strategies were predictive of concurrent percent changes in measures of RV function (R² = 0.21-0.43).

Conclusions

In moderate-to-severe ARDS, "short-term" 4-Hz HFO strategies resulted in better RV function versus 7-Hz HFO, partly attributable to improved PaCO₂ control, and similar or improved RV function versus CV.

Trial registration

This study was registered 40 days prior to the enrollment of the first patient at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID no. NCT02027129, Principal Investigator Spyros D. Mentzelopoulos, date of registration January 3, 2014.

High-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome

BACKGROUND

High-frequency oscillation (HFO) is an alternative to conventional mechanical ventilation that is sometimes used to treat people with acute respiratory distress syndrome, but effects on oxygenation, mortality and adverse clinical outcomes are uncertain. This review was originally published in 2004 and was updated in 2013 and again in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of HFO compared to conventional mechanical ventilation on physiological outcomes, clinical outcomes, and mortality when used for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

SEARCH METHODS

We electronically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and ISI, from inception to December 2015. We conducted the original search in 2002. We manually searched reference lists from included studies and review articles; searched conference proceedings of the American Thoracic Society (1994 to 2015), Society of Critical Care Medicine (1994 to 2015), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (1994 to 2015), and American College of Chest Physicians (1994 to 2015); contacted clinical experts in the field; and searched for unpublished and ongoing trials in clinicaltrials.gov and controlled-trials.com.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatment using HFO with conventional mechanical ventilation for children and adults diagnosed with ARDS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data on clinical, physiological, and safety outcomes according to a predefined protocol. We contacted investigators of all included studies to clarify methods and obtain additional data. We used random-effects models in the analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 10 RCTs (n = 1850); almost all participants had moderate or severe ARDS. For the primary analysis, the risk of bias was low in three studies and unclear in five studies; the overall quality of evidence was very low due to imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness and methodologic limitations. In participants randomized to HFO, there was no significant difference in hospital or 30-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.16; P = 0.46, I² = 66%; 8 trials, 1779 participants, 807 deaths) compared with conventional ventilation. One large multicentre RCT was terminated early because of increased mortality in participants randomized to HFO compared to mechanical ventilation with low tidal volume and high positive end expiratory pressure, with HFO reserved only as a rescue therapy. We found substantial between-trial statistical heterogeneity (I² = 0% to 66%) for clinical outcomes, including mortality. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this systematic review suggest that HFO does not reduce hospital and 30-day mortality due to ARDS; the quality of evidence was very low. Our findings do not support the use of HFO as a first-line strategy in people undergoing mechanical ventilation for ARDS.