当前位置: X-MOL 学术Fetal Neonatal › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Comparison of volume guarantee and volume-controlled ventilation both using closed loop inspired oxygen in preterm infants: a randomised crossover study (CLIO-VG study)
Fetal & Neonatal ( IF 4.4 ) Pub Date : 2021-07-07 , DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2021-321712
Vrinda Nair 1, 2 , Mithilesh Kumar Lal 3 , Jenna Gillone 3 , Prakash Kannan Loganathan 3 , Thomas Edward Bachman 4, 5
Affiliation  

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][1]. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. All data relevant to the study are included in the article. [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT03865069&atom=%2Ffetalneonatal%2Fearly%2F2021%2F07%2F06%2Farchdischild-2021-321712.atom

中文翻译:

在早产儿中使用闭环吸入氧气的容量保证和容量控制通气的比较:一项随机交叉研究(CLIO-VG 研究)

目的 本研究的目的是比较两种不同的通气模式在自动控制氧气输送 (A-FiO2) 的通气早产儿中维持氧饱和度 (SpO2) 在目标范围 (90%–95%) 方面的作用。设计 一项单中心随机交叉研究。设置 A III 级新生儿重症监护室。患者 接受机械通气且需氧量 >21% 的早产儿。干预 容量保证 (VG) 与具有自动氧气控制 (A-FiO2) 的容量控制通气 (VCV) 模式。结果 本研究的主要结果是氧饱和度在目标范围内的时间比例 (90%–95%)。结果 19 名中位胎龄 25 周(IQR:24-28)和出生体重 685 g(IQR:595-980)的早产儿被纳入研究。两组之间用于目标饱和的时间中位数比例的主要结果没有显着差异(VG 为 72%(57-81),VCV 为 75%(58-83);p=0.98)。SpO2 <80% (0.03% vs 0.14%; p=0.51)、SpO2 >98% (0.50% vs 0.08%; p=0.54)、中位值的次要结局没有显着差异分别在 VG 和 VCV 之间进行 FiO2(31% 对 29%;p=0.51)或手动调整。两组中长期低氧血症和高氧血症的发作次数相似。结论 在这项交叉随机对照研究中,当使用 A-FiO2 作为 FiO2 控制器时,VG 和 VCV 在目标 SpO2 范围内花费的时间没有显着差异。试用注册号 [NCT03865069][1]。所有与研究相关的数据都包含在文章中或作为补充信息上传。所有与研究相关的数据都包含在文章中。[1]:/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT03865069&atom=%2Ffetalneonatal%2Fearly%2F2021%2F07%2F06%2Farchdischild-2021-321712.atom
更新日期:2021-07-08
down
wechat
bug