Search

Three hundred nine patients were randomly allocated to two ventilatory protocols; 157 patients were supported with a volume-cycled ventilator (VCV) (Bear Medical BEAR 1) and 152 with a high-frequency jet ventilatory (HFJV) developed at our institution. The two ventilators were compared for safety, reliability, ease of use, and efficacy in maintaining gas exchange. On VCV, end points of therapy were: fractional concentration of oxygen in the inspired gas (FIo 2 ) ≤ 0.40; arterial oxygen pressure (PaO 2 ) ≥ 70 mm Hg; cardiac index (CI) ≥ 3.5 L/min/sq m; and spontaneous respiratory rate ≤ eight breaths per minute. On HFJV, end points were: FIo 2 ≤ 0.45; arterial oxygen saturation ≥ 0.90; and CI ≥ 3.5 L/min/sq m. Spontaneous ventilation and pulmonary venous admixture reduction were the goals on VCV, with oxygen transport the goal on HFJV, Total duration of use of the ventilators was approximately 800 days with both types of devices; there were no technical failures, and the incidence of barotrauma was less than 5 percent. The end point of mechanical ventilation was reached by a significantly higher percentage of the patients randomized to HFJV. Patients who failed to reach the therapeutic goal within 24 hours were crossed over to the other form of support. Those crossed from VCV to HFJV improved more rapidly and in greater number than those crossed from HFJV to VCV. When survival and total duration of stay in the intensive care unit were considered, there was no difference between VCV and HFJV. Considering data on gas exchange, VCV provided a higher PaO 2 at equivalent positive end-respiratory pressure than HFJV. Alveolar ventilation was slightly better on HFJV. Differences were statistically but not clinically significant. On HFJV, oxygenation and ventilation were maintained with lower peak inspiratory pressures and smaller tidal volumes than those required for VCV. This investigation proves that HFJV is a safe and reliable method to provide mechanical support which does not, at this time, offer obvious benefits over VCV.

Respiratory failure of different origins often requires therapy with mechanical ventilation and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). These supports are occasionally inadequate if the damage to one lung is significantly more pronounced than that to the other lung. Technical means exist to ventilate each lung independently or to provide a different PEEP to each lung. The findings from nine patients in whom one of these techniques was applied are presented, and advantages and disadvantages are discussed.