Flow-synchronized ventilation of preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome. Randomised trial of volume controlled versus time cycled, pressure limited ventilation in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome.
Asynchrony of delivered and spontaneous breaths in mechanically ventilated infants may impair gas exchange and prolong the need for assisted ventilation. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of a patient-triggered, flow-synchronized ventilator on 30 preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome who weighed between 1100 and 1500 gm at birth. Entry criteria included radiographic evidence of respiratory distress syndrome and the need for mechanical ventilation and surfactant replacement therapy. Patients were assigned to either conventional time-cycled, pressure-limited ventilation or patient-triggered, flow-synchronized ventilation in an assist/control mode. Otherwise clinical management was identical. Time to extubation was the primary outcome measure. Patients treated with flow-synchronized ventilation were weaned more rapidly and had a significantly shorter mean time to extubation than those treated with time-cycled, pressure-limited ventilation, 119 versus 271 hours, p = 0.0152. In addition, there was no difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. There were, however, considerable reductions in patient charges of $4344 per patient in the flow-synchronized ventilation group. Fifty preterm infants weighing 1200 g or more with clinical and radiographic evidence of respiratory distress syndrome, requiring both mechanical ventilation and exogenous surfactant replacement, were randomly allocated to receive either volume controlled ventilation or time cycled, pressure limited ventilation. Tidal volume delivery in each group was deliberately controlled at 5-8 ml/kg so that the only difference between the two groups was the ventilatory modality, the manner in which tidal volume was delivered. The rest of the ventilatory management and clinical care was done according to protocol. The two modes of ventilation were compared by determining the time required to achieve pre-determined success criteria, based on either the alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient or the mean airway pressure as a standard against which the speed of weaning could be objectively assessed. Infants randomised to volume controlled ventilation met success criteria sooner and had a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation. These babies also had a significantly lower incidence of intraventricular haemorrhages and abnormal periventricular echodensities on ultrasound scans. Volume controlled ventilation seems to be both safe and effective in this group of patients.
There is insufficient evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of flow-cycled compared to time-cycled synchronized ventilation in neonates. Large randomized clinical trials using a parallel-group design and reporting on clinically important outcomes are warranted.