Pro/con clinical debate: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation is better than conventional ventilation for premature infants
AUTOR(ES)
Courtney, Sherry E
FONTE
BioMed Central
RESUMO
Arguably one of the most important advances in critical care medicine in recent years has been the understanding that mechanical ventilators can impart harm and that lung-protective ventilation strategies can save lives. High-frequency oscillatory ventilation appears ideally suited for lung protection at first glance. Two camps of opinion exist, however, even in neonates where this modality has been most extensively studied. In the present debate, the prevailing arguments from each of those camps are made available for the reader to decide.
ACESSO AO ARTIGO
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=374363Documentos Relacionados
- Pro/con clinical debate: Is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation useful in the management of adult patients with respiratory failure?
- Pro/con clinical debate: Is high-volume hemofiltration beneficial in the treatment of septic shock?
- Pro/con clinical debate: Hydroxyethylstarches should be avoided in septic patients
- Pro/con ethics debate: is nonheart-beating organ donation ethically acceptable?
- Pro/con clinical debate: do colloids have advantages over crystalloids in paediatric sepsis?
