Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2021
Comparison of volume guarantee and volume-controlled ventilation both using closed loop inspired oxygen in preterm infants: a randomised crossover study (CLIO-VG study).
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nair Vrinda, Lal Mithilesh Kumar, Gillone Jenna, Kannan Loganathan Prakash, Bachman Thomas Edward
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare two different modes of ventilation in maintaining oxygen saturation (SpO2) in target range (90%-95%) in ventilated preterm infants cared for with automatic control of oxygen delivery (A-FiO2).
DESIGN: A single-centre randomised crossover study.
SETTINGS: A level III neonatal intensive care unit.
PATIENTS: Preterm infants receiving mechanical ventilation and oxygen requirement >21%.
INTERVENTIONS: Volume guarantee (VG) vs volume controlled ventilation (VCV) modes with automatic oxygen control (A-FiO2).
OUTCOMES: The primary outcome of this study was the proportion of time spent with oxygen saturations in the target range (90%-95%) .
RESULTS: Nineteen preterm infants with a median gestation age 25 weeks (IQR: 24-28) and birth weight 685 g (IQR: 595-980) were enrolled in the study. There was no significant difference in primary outcome of median proportion of time spent in target saturation between the two arms (72% (57-81) in VG vs 75% (58-83) in VCV; p=0.98). There was no significant difference in the secondary outcomes of time spent in SpO2 <80% (0.03% vs 0.14%; p=0.51), time spent in SpO2 >98% (0.50% vs 0.08%; p=0.54), the median FiO2 (31% vs 29%; p=0.51) or manual adjustments carried out between VG and VCV, respectively. The number of episodes of prolonged hypoxaemia and hyperoxaemia were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in time spent in target SpO2 range between VG and VCV when A-FiO2 was used as the FiO2 controller in this crossover randomised control study.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03865069.
DESIGN: A single-centre randomised crossover study.
SETTINGS: A level III neonatal intensive care unit.
PATIENTS: Preterm infants receiving mechanical ventilation and oxygen requirement >21%.
INTERVENTIONS: Volume guarantee (VG) vs volume controlled ventilation (VCV) modes with automatic oxygen control (A-FiO2).
OUTCOMES: The primary outcome of this study was the proportion of time spent with oxygen saturations in the target range (90%-95%) .
RESULTS: Nineteen preterm infants with a median gestation age 25 weeks (IQR: 24-28) and birth weight 685 g (IQR: 595-980) were enrolled in the study. There was no significant difference in primary outcome of median proportion of time spent in target saturation between the two arms (72% (57-81) in VG vs 75% (58-83) in VCV; p=0.98). There was no significant difference in the secondary outcomes of time spent in SpO2 <80% (0.03% vs 0.14%; p=0.51), time spent in SpO2 >98% (0.50% vs 0.08%; p=0.54), the median FiO2 (31% vs 29%; p=0.51) or manual adjustments carried out between VG and VCV, respectively. The number of episodes of prolonged hypoxaemia and hyperoxaemia were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in time spent in target SpO2 range between VG and VCV when A-FiO2 was used as the FiO2 controller in this crossover randomised control study.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03865069.