Clinical experience with several types of high frequency ventilation

N. Mutz,M. Baum,H. Benzer,G. Putz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.1989.tb03020.x

1989-09-01

Abstract:INTRODUCTION In clinical practice, only the following parameters are used routinely to evaluate the effectiveness of artificial ventilation: pressures volumes blood-gas analyses composition of breathing gases. Therefore the clinical usefulness of today’s well-established methods is not yet proven. This hypothesis can best be substantiated with the example of “intermittent mandatory ventilation” (IMV). IMV is a standard method in the field of artificial ventilation. However, up to now there has been no prospective randomized study of the benefits of IMV in comparison with controlled mechanical ventilation techniques. The questions to be answered include: ~ Are there any physiological or pathophysiological explanations for the superiority of this method? Is IMV by itself advantageous against other methods (duration of weaning, clinical outcome, etc.)? Sometimes clinical circumstances, such as ethical aspects or the well-established practical use of a technique, will hinder such a trial, as will the lack of sensitive methods of examination. Taking into account these considerations, monitoring methods developed for conventional ventilation techniques will not necessarily be applicable to methods of assessing different principles of gas transport ( 1 ) . The intention to evaluate high frequency ventilation (HFV) -methods under clinical conditions must lead to the question: what is clinically measurable when using HFV?