Comparison of volume guarantee and volume-controlled ventilation both using closed loop inspired oxygen in preterm infants: a randomised crossover study (CLIO-VG study)
Language English Country England, Great Britain Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial
PubMed
34233907
DOI
10.1136/archdischild-2021-321712
PII: archdischild-2021-321712
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- neonatology, technology,
- MeSH
- Intensive Care Units, Neonatal MeSH
- Cross-Over Studies MeSH
- Oxygen therapeutic use MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Noninvasive Ventilation MeSH
- Infant, Premature * MeSH
- Infant, Newborn MeSH
- Oxygen Inhalation Therapy methods MeSH
- Oximetry methods MeSH
- Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn prevention & control MeSH
- Respiration, Artificial methods MeSH
- Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Infant, Newborn MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Oxygen MeSH
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.
Biomedical Technology Czech Technical University Prague Czech Republic
Medtrx org Lake Arrowhead California USA
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit James Cook University Hospital Middlesbrough UK
Translational and Clinical Research Institute Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne UK
References provided by Crossref.org
ClinicalTrials.gov
NCT03865069