Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2002 Nov-Dec;23(6):444-8.
doi: 10.1097/00004630-200211000-00011.

A prospective, randomized comparison of the Volume Diffusive Respirator vs conventional ventilation for ventilation of burned children. 2001 ABA paper

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

A prospective, randomized comparison of the Volume Diffusive Respirator vs conventional ventilation for ventilation of burned children. 2001 ABA paper

B Carman et al. J Burn Care Rehabil. 2002 Nov-Dec.

Abstract

The Volume Diffusive Respirator (VDR) is a high-frequency time cycled pressure ventilator that can ventilate, oxygenate, and promote secretion removal. The VDR provides ventilation at lower airway pressures than those required for conventional ventilation in the pressure control mode (PCV). A prospective, randomized, institutional review board-approved study was conducted comparing the VDR to PCV in burned children with respiratory failure from all causes.

Methods: Pediatric burn patients requiring ventilation were stratified by presence of inhalation injury and ventilated by VDR or PCV to achieve predefined arterial blood gases.

Results: Sixty-four patients were prospectively assigned ventilator type; 32 to VDR, 32 to PCV. Data are reported as mean + SEM. Patient age was 7.4 + 0.7 years, TBSA was 56 + 3%, and number of patients with inhalation injuries was 55 (86%). Maximum peak inspiratory pressure with the VDR was significantly less than with PCV (30.9 + 0.8 cm H2O vs 39.5 + 1.8 cm H2O,P < 0.05) and the best PaO2 /FIO2 ratio was significantly higher with the VDR compared with PCV (563 + 15 vs 507 + 13, P < 0.05). No patient in the VDR group had evidence of barotrauma compared with two in the PCV group. Five patients in the PCV group died compared with two in the VDR group.

Conclusion: Patients ventilated with the VDR required significantly lower peak inspiratory pressure and achieved a significantly higher PaO2 /FIO2 ratio compared with PCV. This demonstrates the VDR is a safe and effective method of ventilation for pediatric burn patients and it offers advantages when compared with conventional ventilation.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources