September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Rate of High Frequency Oscillator Ventilation (HFOV) in Infants with Type 1 Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) versus Untreated Controls in a Level IV Nursery
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Kara Dolezal
    Ophthalmology, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States
    Ophthalmology, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, United States
  • Namratha Turlapati
    Ophthalmology, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, United States
  • Marijean Miller
    Ophthalmology, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Kara Dolezal, None; Namratha Turlapati, None; Marijean Miller, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 6305. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Kara Dolezal, Namratha Turlapati, Marijean Miller; Rate of High Frequency Oscillator Ventilation (HFOV) in Infants with Type 1 Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) versus Untreated Controls in a Level IV Nursery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):6305.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose :

The purpose of the study is evalute if newborns meeting criteria for ROP screening have a difference in ROP outcomes if managed with standard ventilation versus high frequency oscillatory ventilation.

Methods : A control group of infants < 28 weeks gestational age admitted during the ROP screening period was randomly selected from the total set of infants screened from January 2011 to June 2015. A set of infants treated for Type 1 ROP during this time period was compared for summed days on HFOV, days on conventional ventilation (V), and days on non-mechanical ventilation (no-V) support with a denominator of total NICU days to show percentage of time spent on each respiratory support mode.

Results : In the control group of 45 infants, 8 (18%) received HFOV interspersed with days of conventional ventilation, 28 (62%) received only V, and 9 (20%) no-V. In 29 treated for ROP, 3 (10%) received HFOV, 22 (76%) V, and 4 (14%) received no V. Percentage of time spent on each respiratory support mode, control versus treated respectively, were: HFOV 2.5% vs 0.3%; V 20.7% vs 21.6%; and no-V 76.8% vs 78.1%.

Conclusions : HFOV was used more in infants that did not develop Type 1 ROP in a Level IV nursery.At our institution, HFOV is a rescue treatment for critically ill infants rather than a primary ventilation mode. Control infants without Type 1 ROP had more HFOV days in our NICU than did infants treated for Type 1 ROP.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×