Multicenter controlled trial comparing high-frequency jet ventilation and conventional mechanical ventilation in newborn infants with pulmonary interstitial emphysema

Abstract

One hundred forty-four newborn infants with pulmonary interstitial emphysema were stratified by weight and severity of illness, and randomly assigned to receive treatment with high-frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) or rapid-rate conventional mechanical ventilation (CV) with short inspiratory time. If criteria for treatment failure were met, crossover to the alternate ventilatory mode was permitted. Overall, 45 (61%) of 74 infants met treatment success criteria with HFJV compared with 26 (37%) of 70 treated with CV (p less than 0.01). Eighty-four percent of patients who crossed over from CV to HFJV initially responded to the new treatment, and 45% ultimately met success criteria on HFJV. In contrast, only 9% of those who crossed over from HFJV to CV responded well to CV (p less than 0.01), and the same 9% ultimately met success criteria (p less than 0.05). Therapy with HFJV resulted in improved ventilation at lower peak and mean airway pressures, as well as more rapid radiographic improvement of pulmonary interstitial emphysema, in comparison with rapid-rate CV. Survival by original assignment was identical. When survival resulting from rescue by the alternate therapy in crossover patients was excluded, the survival rate was 64.9% for HFJV, compared with 47.1% for CV (p less than 0.05). The incidence of chronic lung disease, intraventricular hemorrhage, patent ductus arteriosus, airway obstruction, and new air leak was similar in both groups. We conclude that HFJV, as used in this study, is safe and is more effective than rapid-rate CV in the treatment of newborn infants with pulmonary interstitial emphysema.