A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation against conventional artificial ventilation for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome. The OSCAR (OSCillation in ARDS) study

Author:

Lall Ranjit1,Hamilton Patrick2,Young Duncan34,Hulme Claire2,Hall Peter2,Shah Sanjoy5,MacKenzie Iain6,Tunnicliffe William6,Rowan Kathy7,Cuthbertson Brian8,McCabe Chris2,Lamb Sallie1,

Affiliation:

1. Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK

2. University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

3. John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK

4. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

5. Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK

6. Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK

7. Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK

8. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada

Abstract

BackgroundPatients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) require artificial ventilation but this treatment may produce secondary lung damage. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) may reduce this damage.ObjectivesTo determine the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of HFOV in patients with ARDS compared with standard mechanical ventilation.DesignA parallel, randomised, unblinded clinical trial.SettingUK intensive care units.ParticipantsMechanically ventilated patients with a partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fractional concentration of inspired oxygen (P : F) ratio of 26.7 kPa (200 mmHg) or less and an expected duration of ventilation of at least 2 days at recruitment.InterventionsTreatment arm HFOV using a Novalung R100®ventilator (Metran Co. Ltd, Saitama, Japan) ventilator until the start of weaning.Control arm Conventional mechanical ventilation using the devices available in the participating centres.Main outcome measuresThe primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days after randomisation. The primary health economic outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.ResultsOne hundred and sixty-six of 398 patients (41.7%) randomised to the HFOV group and 163 of 397 patients (41.1%) randomised to the conventional mechanical ventilation group died within 30 days of randomisation (p = 0.85), for an absolute difference of 0.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) −6.1% to 7.5%]. After adjustment for study centre, sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, and the initial P : F ratio, the odds ratio for survival in the conventional ventilation group was 1.03 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.40;p = 0.87 logistic regression). Survival analysis showed no difference in the probability of survival up to 12 months after randomisation. The average QALY at 1 year in the HFOV group was 0.302 compared to 0.246. This gives an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the cost to society per QALY of £88,790 and an ICER for the cost to the NHS per QALY of £78,260.ConclusionsThe use of HFOV had no effect on 30-day mortality in adult patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for ARDS and no economic advantage. We suggest that further research into avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury should concentrate on ventilatory strategies other than HFOV.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN10416500.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Funder

National Institute for Health Research

Publisher

National Institute for Health Research

Subject

Health Policy

Cited by 29 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3