Hi Guys, I would like an opinion on HFOV, HFOV+VG as a mode of ventilation for extremely preterm infants.

Case:  24 weeks, 600g baby (day2-3) past honeymoon period, on 2x inotropes just maintaining borderline BP. Ventilation: HFOV+VG, Hertz 6, VG:3.3mls/kg. Blood gas was reasonable. The baby was put on this mode as there were apparently issues with CO2 clearance. My experience with this mode is (...use it when nothing works!) limited. I have used it comfortably in term or near-term infants but in an extremely preterm infant, I was a bit shaky. Anyhow, I thought gases are stable and the baby seems to be coping well... let's not rock the boat!

Unfortunately, the VG started to play up as the ventilator kept beeping (...volume not being delivered) so I took off the VG... then didn't quite know whether to put the Hertz up (from 6 to ???? how much? or to just leave it) because now we were only HFOV minus VG. Repeat gas wasn't as good. In the middle of the night, the safest thing to do was to switch the baby over to conventional which I did and it worked for the baby.

I couldn't comprehend the reasoning for the initial ventilator settings ...so started reading about strategies in preterm infants as I do not have enough experience with this mode in extremely preterm ELBW babies and thought I'll get some useful information. But I was totally confused and felt blank especially after reading what was available (not much, I have to say).  Therefore I thought I shall bring my dilemma here ...for expert opinions and comments. I do not seem to find any standards or reasonable guidance on the following:

1. What should the starting frequency be (especially in babies <1000 g)? Should we be using this mode for these babies in the first place? 

2. What about the VG mode? What kind of frequency do you use in your practice for extremely preterm ELBW babies? Is it ok to go down to 6hz in a baby ~600g on VG mode? Is there any evidence? Is it just experience-dependent? 

3. Any useful literature or guidance on the strategies, safety, outcomes etc in this population to share, please?  

I would appreciate your input and comments. 

Your are setting high tidal volumes on HFOV. Usual TV on HFOV is between 1.5 -2.5 ml/kg.

As a recommendation for very small babies you start with frequency of 12-15. In VG mode changing the Hz is not going to make any meaningful difference as your tidal volume is already guaranteed. 

there are studies about safety and Benefits of HFOV in preterm population. 

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/bye/rQoPWwoRrXS9-i-wudNgpQDxudhWudNzlXNiZip9Ei7ym67VZR0R-g0VOg08A6h9Ei4L3BUgWwNG0it.

Hello!

1. We have used HFO + VG for some years in our unit. We very often use HFO from start in extremely preterm and not as rescue-treatment. Our experience is good and they tolerate HFO well. I find it easier to control pCO2 with mild permissive hypercapnia in HFO+VG compared to HFO or CV. I think it is definitely an option to use HFO in the first place. But you should make sure that you and the rest of the staff is on the same level there and do some reading first. The frequency in extremely premature babies should be 10-15. We usually start at 10 and probably beneficial to the smallest children to have higher frequencies.  Initial setting of ΔP should be around 20-25cm H20 in a newborn ELBW, or titrate until you se discrete chest wall vibration. You would need higher amplitudes when using HFO as rescue. 

2. The volumes usually are 1.5-3ml/kg but depend on Hz (higher volumes for lower Hz and vice versa). I find the easiest way to apply VG is to "lock" the volume when you have a blood gas with pCO2 with mild permissive hypercapnia. Set the ΔPmax about 5cmH20 above the setting that you had with VG turned off. The reason why the ventilator starts beeping is that the ΔP is not high enough to allow for the volume requested. So for the patient you describe I would set Hz to 10-12 and the volume should be around 2/kg. Hz in the area 5-10 you should reserve for patients with meconium aspiration syndrome, PPHN and other term babies.

3. Dräger has a brochure on HFO that I find quite good, that covers the theoretical background of HFO and settings, and practical tips. It is available to download. We don´t have Dräger in our unit but their brochure is good. 

Hello,

I agree with Dr. SAS. To start with, I rarely use HFOV for ELBW babies (less than 1000 grams), either from the start or as a rescue mode. If I use HFOV, I start with frequency like 10 to 12 Hz. If I have to choose one of the high frequency vents, I usually prefer Jet ventilation (HFJV) over Oscillator (HFOV) for tiny babies. The reasons for that are, I want to have more control on PIP, PEEP (indirectly delta P), the rate, and to avoid/decrease the over distension of lungs (to decrease barotrauma and volutrauma).

Nowadays in our unit, the number of babies who are still on ET ventilation is smaller beyond 2 days of age, when compared to those who are on non-invasive (nasal) ventilation (NIV). Our unit is big on early extubation within 24 to 48 hours (or even within 6 to 12 hours), after loading with caffeine, and use NIV. Some our neonatal fellows are admitting babies on HFJV for night admissions. They invariably end up on higher doses of medications like fentanyl, morphine or midazolam. One of the strong reasons for the heavy sedation is, night nurses' preference. Those babies tend to stay on ET HFJV for longer period. In day time, when the baby gets admitted on conventional ventilator, we load them with caffeine, give surfactant (only some babies get it), and extubate to NIV, all within a 4 to 6 hours.

For ELBW babies, I personally use HFJV mainly as a rescue mode, when they require on conventional respirator MAPs of 10 to 12 (to maintain arterial PO2s 50 to 65 range and pCO2s in 45 to 55 range) either on PC/PS mode or PRVC mode, or if the chest X-rays show early s/o PIE. Based on the evidence (medical literature), and cumulative experience of 30 plus years, I strongly feel early extubation, tolerance to reasonable permissive hypercapnia, and the early use of NIV will decrease the incidence of BPD.

Those are my two cents. Hopefully, this discussion is helpful,

 

7 hours ago, Dr. Saad Ahmed Seth said:

Your are setting high tidal volumes on HFOV. Usual TV on HFOV is between 1.5 -2.5 ml/kg.

As a recommendation for very small babies you start with frequency of 12-15. In VG mode changing the Hz is not going to make any meaningful difference as your tidal volume is already guaranteed. 

there are studies about safety and Benefits of HFOV in preterm population. 

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/bye/rQoPWwoRrXS9-i-wudNgpQDxudhWudNzlXNiZip9Ei7ym67VZR0R-g0VOg08A6h9Ei4L3BUgWwNG0it.

Thank you for your comments. Very helpful. 

 

7 hours ago, thx3 said:

Hello!

1. We have used HFO + VG for some years in our unit. We very often use HFO from start in extremely preterm and not as rescue-treatment. Our experience is good and they tolerate HFO well. I find it easier to control pCO2 with mild permissive hypercapnia in HFO+VG compared to HFO or CV. I think it is definitely an option to use HFO in the first place. But you should make sure that you and the rest of the staff is on the same level there and do some reading first. The frequency in extremely premature babies should be 10-15. We usually start at 10 and probably beneficial to the smallest children to have higher frequencies.  Initial setting of ΔP should be around 20-25cm H20 in a newborn ELBW, or titrate until you se discrete chest wall vibration. You would need higher amplitudes when using HFO as rescue. 

2. The volumes usually are 1.5-3ml/kg but depend on Hz (higher volumes for lower Hz and vice versa). I find the easiest way to apply VG is to "lock" the volume when you have a blood gas with pCO2 with mild permissive hypercapnia. Set the ΔPmax about 5cmH20 above the setting that you had with VG turned off. The reason why the ventilator starts beeping is that the ΔP is not high enough to allow for the volume requested. So for the patient you describe I would set Hz to 10-12 and the volume should be around 2/kg. Hz in the area 5-10 you should reserve for patients with meconium aspiration syndrome, PPHN and other term babies.

3. Dräger has a brochure on HFO that I find quite good, that covers the theoretical background of HFO and settings, and practical tips. It is available to download. We don´t have Dräger in our unit but their brochure is good. 

Thank you for the above explanation. I did read the Drager brochure and found that very helpful and that was when I got a bit confused. Because the baby in the unit was on a very low frequency, whereas, in Drager they recommend babies to be started on a frequency of 12-15 and on VG 10 Hz, hence I brought it up.  I understand the lower frequency strategy for meconium babies etc but it was difficult to understand the lower frequency strategy in extremely preterm ELBW baby. I guess the aim was to increase VG but couldn't find a real explanation! Maybe frequency doesn't make any sense in VG as Dr SAS suggested so it was reasonable to go lower down in above case? I always thought it is the amplitude that you don't have to fiddle with when on VG mode, as the ventilator decides that. 

But overall I feel more in context with the use of VG in extremely preterm infants. I perhaps need more time and reading to try it one day.  

2 hours ago, rajnandyal said:

Hello,

I agree with Dr. SAS. To start with, I rarely use HFOV for ELBW babies (less than 1000 grams), either from the start or as a rescue mode. If I use HFOV, I start with frequency like 10 to 12 Hz. If I have to choose one of the high frequency vents, I usually prefer Jet ventilation (HFJV) over Oscillator (HFOV) for tiny babies. The reasons for that are, I want to have more control on PIP, PEEP (indirectly delta P), the rate, and to avoid/decrease the over distension of lungs (to decrease barotrauma and volutrauma).

Nowadays in our unit, the number of babies who are still on ET ventilation is smaller beyond 2 days of age, when compared to those who are on non-invasive (nasal) ventilation (NIV). Our unit is big on early extubation within 24 to 48 hours (or even within 6 to 12 hours), after loading with caffeine, and use NIV. Some our neonatal fellows are admitting babies on HFJV for night admissions. They invariably end up on higher doses of medications like fentanyl, morphine or midazolam. One of the strong reasons for the heavy sedation is, night nurses' preference. Those babies tend to stay on ET HFJV for longer period. In day time, when the baby gets admitted on conventional ventilator, we load them with caffeine, give surfactant (only some babies get it), and extubate to NIV, all within a 4 to 6 hours.

For ELBW babies, I personally use HFJV mainly as a rescue mode, when they require on conventional respirator MAPs of 10 to 12 (to maintain arterial PO2s 50 to 65 range and pCO2s in 45 to 55 range) either on PC/PS mode or PRVC mode, or if the chest X-rays show early s/o PIE. Based on the evidence (medical literature), and cumulative experience of 30 plus years, I strongly feel early extubation, tolerance to reasonable permissive hypercapnia, and the early use of NIV will decrease the incidence of BPD.

Those are my two cents. Hopefully, this discussion is helpful,

 

Thank you very helpful discussion indeed. My personal practice and training have been as above, therefore, nothing made sense to me in the above case. I agree Conventional +VG is the only strategy that has shown to improve BPD or quick transition to NIV.

But I would not disagree with @thx3 on the accepted use in preterms, but need to have a clear understanding before starting to do something new in this vulnerable population. He is right, the staff and everyone else should be on the same page. 

I also want to emphasize what previous discussants already mentioned,  that the entire team should be on the same page. I am sure that all of you often heard this comment before- "baby failed HFJV". In most of those cases (with due credit to the clinicians), I feel that WE failed (not the baby) to choose the correct strategy, or manage the ventilation/oxygenation, or unable to wait for a strategy to work, based on our bias, bad habits or our past experience. I encourage our fellows to contact the HELP team of HFJV in difficult situations. Contacting that RT team is very productive and educational. Please let us know, if there is any such "on-call personnel" for other vendors. We all will benefit. Thanks. 

Dear All 

As the application specialist for Dräger in Neonatal Ventilation in South Africa, perhaps if I could suggest Prof. Jane Pillow’s book on HFOV where the A-Z on HFOV is addressed. There are also various online webinars where Prof. Jane Pillow discusses HFOV including HFOV + VG. 

 

Extremely important with HFOV is that the set Amplitude is achieved at patient end which can only be measured if using the proximal flow sensor during HFOV. The monitored patient values should include the patient realized Delta Pressure if the set amplitude and measured delta pressure are not equal, blood gas result will reflect minimal changes in response to  hertz changes, and in the event of VG it is highly likely that tidal volumes will also not be achieved. The hertz and I:E of HFO (or Ti) need to be adjusted until delta pressure is achieved at patient. This will influence tidal volume and thus CO2. VG regulates the the amplitude according to changes in lung compliance and or resistance changes. Compliance changes will directly influence the tidal volume and hence the set TV may not be achieved and the ventilator will give the message that tidal volume is then not achieved. Trouble shooting would include eliminating reason for a change in lung compliance and/ or resistance and if possible increase amplitude max or changing I:E ratio and hertz. Monitoring  of the DCO2 value gives additional information with regards to CO2. The DCO2 is a calculated value and is inversely proportionate to CO2, hence if CO2 is on the increase the DCO2 value will drop, and visa versa.

I hope this will be of assistance in the future during HFOV. 

Best Regards 

 

 

Agree that 6 hz is too slow. Appropriate MAP is key to successfully ventilating and oxygenating.

Axiom #1: The best ventilator is the one you have the most expertise with. New (to the user) forms of ventilation open the door for errors of inexperience.

Axiom #2:  HFOV has a checkered past in many studies. Sun et al demonstrated strongly positive results in VLBW infants receiving HFOV vs pressure support ventilation. Why the discrepancy? Consider the adjunct care. 

Hypothesis: Whenever an infant is disconnected from an oscillating device, the lungs instantly deflate. Consider that extremely premature infants have little, if any, alveolar surface area.Temporary ventilation is usually provided by a manual resuscitation device that cannot match the oscillator. This act in itself likely contributes to barotrauma and subsequent CLD. Terminal bronchioles are “bubbled up” by attempts to mimic the ventilation we see in term infants. Evidence includes the observation that it can take a half hour after reconnecting the infant to HFOV  to fully achieve reinflation. Thus, any interruption in oscillatory MAP can be considered iatrogenic.

Axiom#3: The role of manual resuscitation in the development of CLD has not been adequately studied (almost completely ignored). Disconnection from high MAP ventilation is rarely a point of focus. These omissions skew most of the observations and conclusions in neonatal ventilation studies.

ref: Sun et al ClinicalTrials.govNCT01496508

Respiratory Care Feb 2014, 59(2) 159- 169

The praxis described by Thx3 is very sensible and similar to what we use in my unit. We use HFO on VN500 either as primary mode or rescue mode. 

In RDS you can often start at 10Hz and VG around 1,5-2 ml/kg and then adjust VG upwards or downwards depending on pCO2 (assuming the lung is adequately recruited by using appropriate MAP) or start without VG and adjust amplitude based on chest wiggle and pCO2 trend, and when you have the right number you lock the VtHf by adding VG / but remember to allow the maximum amplitude to be set well above the avarage needed to achieve the set VtHf.

The VN500 delivers a very consistent and stable Vt in VG mode - the Mve trend line becomes completely flat and you don’t see many surprising pCO2 changes once you have the right VG. Also in my view you can theoretically archive more gentle ventilation by going up on frequency with a constant VtHf and thus keeping VtHf below dead space volume rather than using lower frequency to achieve higher Vt (with out VG).

However still not much litterateur to support but Jane Pillow and Manuel Lucnas groups have done clinical studies on HFO-VG 

 

Hi Schmuz, thank you for sharing your case and bringing up the subject so we can all hear the different opinions and practices.   

A lot has been covered in the above opinions. Here are some points I only want underline.

1-   Deterioration after day 2 or 3 “Honey moon period” in preterms with RDS. 

Although, we don't know if this preterm received surfactant or not. However, our practice is giving surfactant if the preterm is intubated and needing an FIO2 above 0.25 and climbing. Take a look on the Cochrane Rev. by Bahadue FL, Soll R. Early versus delayed selective surfactant treatment for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012.

If such a preterm is not weaned promptly after surfactant and extubated to nCPAP within the first 2~3 days, VILI would develop. Usually within the first hour for such a preterm after given surfactant, ventilator settings are weaned significantly, reducing FIO2 until reaching below 0.3 and then reducing PIPs by following the expiratory volumes +/- CO2 levels if available, if using A/C or SIMV without VG. 

If VG is available we set volumes to 4~4.5 ml/kg and the PIPs will go down by its self when the compliance is improving, and you just wean off the FIO2. Give a loading caffeine and plan extubation. Failure to wean within an hour after surfactant means something is wrong and a follow-up X-ray and probably a 2^nddose of surfactant to be given if still RDS signs are present and if no other evident findings which explains failure to wean. 

For giving surfactant during on HFO check it in HFOV Drager booklet by Jane Pillow 2016 its clearly explained.

2-   The best mode of ventilation and safest is the mode your team masters and are fully experienced with. Typically in our unit we start on conventional ventilation A/C for 3 days (as it has a very slightly less risk than HFO in development of IVH) and then we shift to HFO if not extubated to nCPAP (as HFO has a very slightly less risk of BPD). However, due to the fact that only very slight less risks in both Cochrane statements, any mode a team is confortable with is better HFO or A/C or SIMV+PSV.

3-   This preterm was on two inotropes, please be careful if Dobutamine is one of them. The problem of ventilation could be due to hypotensive effect of Dobutamine, check if both the systolic and diastolic blood pressures are acceptable with a preserved pulse pressure and not only the Mean BP. 

4-   Coming to your question on HFV +VG, 

-      Typically on HFO without VG the setting would be:

o  SV (Δ P) to give Volumes of 2 (1.7~2.5) ml/kg, MAPs of (9~12) to have a FIO2 below 0.3 and a lung expansion with diaphragm reaching 8th~ 9th rib on X-ray. How to reach the suitable MAP is well explained in the HFOV Drager booklet by Jane Pillow 2016.

o  Frequency of 12~15 is gentle ventilation which is our usual used frequency in these small prterms unless otherwise indicated in such cases eg: development of PIEs, where we would use lower MAPs (eg 8~9) on the cost of higher FIO2s, lower end of volumes eg 1.5~1.7 cm/kg and then lower frequencies eg 9~7 Hz for controlling CO2 (keeping PCO2 40 ~ 60).

 

-      With adding the VG it will adjust the Amplitude to maintain your requested volumes, as explained by both @Tanyahand @Christian Heiring.

-      If using the VN500, check the table data (table 2) will include the DCO2 (ml²/sec) try to keep it above 40 up to 80 (adjusted by body weight for the ELBW infants) DCO2/BW²    Hopefully we can get a comment on that equation adjustment for ELBWIs from  @Tanyah

-      Recommended reading for intial settings and weaning, chapter 23 Mechanical Ventilation: Disease-Specific Strategies, by Bradely Yoder in “6th ed. of Assisted Ventilation of the Newborn”

On 4/25/2018 at 8:07 PM, Tanyah said:

Dear All 

As the application specialist for Dräger in Neonatal Ventilation in South Africa, perhaps if I could suggest Prof. Jane Pillow’s book on HFOV where the A-Z on HFOV is addressed. There are also various online webinars where Prof. Jane Pillow discusses HFOV including HFOV + VG. 

 

Extremely important with HFOV is that the set Amplitude is achieved at patient end which can only be measured if using the proximal flow sensor during HFOV. The monitored patient values should include the patient realized Delta Pressure if the set amplitude and measured delta pressure are not equal, blood gas result will reflect minimal changes in response to  hertz changes, and in the event of VG it is highly likely that tidal volumes will also not be achieved. The hertz and I:E of HFO (or Ti) need to be adjusted until delta pressure is achieved at patient. This will influence tidal volume and thus CO2. VG regulates the the amplitude according to changes in lung compliance and or resistance changes. Compliance changes will directly influence the tidal volume and hence the set TV may not be achieved and the ventilator will give the message that tidal volume is then not achieved. Trouble shooting would include eliminating reason for a change in lung compliance and/ or resistance and if possible increase amplitude max or changing I:E ratio and hertz. Monitoring  of the DCO2 value gives additional information with regards to CO2. The DCO2 is a calculated value and is inversely proportionate to CO2, hence if CO2 is on the increase the DCO2 value will drop, and visa versa.

I hope this will be of assistance in the future during HFOV. 

Best Regards 

 

 

12

Absolutely wonderful insight. Many thanks for your comments @Tanyah

On 4/26/2018 at 4:43 AM, pHred said:

Agree that 6 hz is too slow. Appropriate MAP is key to successfully ventilating and oxygenating.

Axiom #1: The best ventilator is the one you have the most expertise with. New (to the user) forms of ventilation open the door for errors of inexperience.

Axiom #2:  HFOV has a checkered past in many studies. Sun et al demonstrated strongly positive results in VLBW infants receiving HFOV vs pressure support ventilation. Why the discrepancy? Consider the adjunct care. 

Hypothesis: Whenever an infant is disconnected from an oscillating device, the lungs instantly deflate. Consider that extremely premature infants have little, if any, alveolar surface area.Temporary ventilation is usually provided by a manual resuscitation device that cannot match the oscillator. This act in itself likely contributes to barotrauma and subsequent CLD. Terminal bronchioles are “bubbled up” by attempts to mimic the ventilation we see in term infants. Evidence includes the observation that it can take a half hour after reconnecting the infant to HFOV  to fully achieve reinflation. Thus, any interruption in oscillatory MAP can be considered iatrogenic.

Axiom#3: The role of manual resuscitation in the development of CLD has not been adequately studied (almost completely ignored). Disconnection from high MAP ventilation is rarely a point of focus. These omissions skew most of the observations and conclusions in neonatal ventilation studies.

ref: Sun et al ClinicalTrials.govNCT01496508

Respiratory Care Feb 2014, 59(2) 159- 169

Very useful, read the article ...some important key take-home messages, many thanks

On 4/26/2018 at 6:44 AM, Christian Heiring said:

The praxis described by Thx3 is very sensible and similar to what we use in my unit. We use HFO on VN500 either as primary mode or rescue mode. 

In RDS you can often start at 10Hz and VG around 1,5-2 ml/kg and then adjust VG upwards or downwards depending on pCO2 (assuming the lung is adequately recruited by using appropriate MAP) or start without VG and adjust amplitude based on chest wiggle and pCO2 trend, and when you have the right number you lock the VtHf by adding VG / but remember to allow the maximum amplitude to be set well above the avarage needed to achieve the set VtHf.

The VN500 delivers a very consistent and stable Vt in VG mode - the Mve trend line becomes completely flat and you don’t see many surprising pCO2 changes once you have the right VG. Also in my view you can theoretically archive more gentle ventilation by going up on frequency with a constant VtHf and thus keeping VtHf below dead space volume rather than using lower frequency to achieve higher Vt (with out VG).

However still not much litterateur to support but Jane Pillow and Manuel Lucnas groups have done clinical studies on HFO-VG 

Thank you 

 

19 hours ago, Hamed said:

 

 

Hi Schmuz, thank you for sharing your case and bringing up the subject so we can all hear the different opinions and practices.   

A lot has been covered in the above opinions. Here are some points I only want underline.

1-   Deterioration after day 2 or 3 “Honey moon period” in preterms with RDS. 

Although, we don't know if this preterm received surfactant or not. However, our practice is giving surfactant if the preterm is intubated and needing an FIO2 above 0.25 and climbing. Take a look on the Cochrane Rev. by Bahadue FL, Soll R. Early versus delayed selective surfactant treatment for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012.

If such a preterm is not weaned promptly after surfactant and extubated to nCPAP within the first 2~3 days, VILI would develop. Usually within the first hour for such a preterm after given surfactant, ventilator settings are weaned significantly, reducing FIO2 until reaching below 0.3 and then reducing PIPs by following the expiratory volumes +/- CO2 levels if available, if using A/C or SIMV without VG. 

If VG is available we set volumes to 4~4.5 ml/kg and the PIPs will go down by its self when the compliance is improving, and you just wean off the FIO2. Give a loading caffeine and plan extubation. Failure to wean within an hour after surfactant means something is wrong and a follow-up X-ray and probably a 2^nddose of surfactant to be given if still RDS signs are present and if no other evident findings which explains failure to wean. 

For giving surfactant during on HFO check it in HFOV Drager booklet by Jane Pillow 2016 its clearly explained.

2-   The best mode of ventilation and safest is the mode your team masters and are fully experienced with. Typically in our unit we start on conventional ventilation A/C for 3 days (as it has a very slightly less risk than HFO in development of IVH) and then we shift to HFO if not extubated to nCPAP (as HFO has a very slightly less risk of BPD). However, due to the fact that only very slight less risks in both Cochrane statements, any mode a team is confortable with is better HFO or A/C or SIMV+PSV.

3-   This preterm was on two inotropes, please be careful if Dobutamine is one of them. The problem of ventilation could be due to hypotensive effect of Dobutamine, check if both the systolic and diastolic blood pressures are acceptable with a preserved pulse pressure and not only the Mean BP. 

4-   Coming to your question on HFV +VG, 

-      Typically on HFO without VG the setting would be:

o  SV (Δ P) to give Volumes of 2 (1.7~2.5) ml/kg, MAPs of (9~12) to have a FIO2 below 0.3 and a lung expansion with diaphragm reaching 8th~ 9th rib on X-ray. How to reach the suitable MAP is well explained in the HFOV Drager booklet by Jane Pillow 2016.

o  Frequency of 12~15 is gentle ventilation which is our usual used frequency in these small prterms unless otherwise indicated in such cases eg: development of PIEs, where we would use lower MAPs (eg 8~9) on the cost of higher FIO2s, lower end of volumes eg 1.5~1.7 cm/kg and then lower frequencies eg 9~7 Hz for controlling CO2 (keeping PCO2 40 ~ 60).

 

-      With adding the VG it will adjust the Amplitude to maintain your requested volumes, as explained by both @Tanyahand @Christian Heiring.

-      If using the VN500, check the table data (table 2) will include the DCO2 (ml²/sec) try to keep it above 40 up to 80 (adjusted by body weight for the ELBW infants) DCO2/BW²    Hopefully we can get a comment on that equation adjustment for ELBWIs from  @Tanyah

-      Recommended reading for intial settings and weaning, chapter 23 Mechanical Ventilation: Disease-Specific Strategies, by Bradely Yoder in “6th ed. of Assisted Ventilation of the Newborn”

Thank you for your detailed comments. The baby did receive surfactant as part of the normal practice. Oxygen requirement was 26% when I got handed over the baby. As mentioned in the first instance ...I couldn't understand those settings at all and thought maybe I do not know the intricacy of HFOV this may be a strategy. But because I was uncomfortable, I read and found out, mostly what that you guys have mentioned above. This has given me so much clarity... cheers to all the gurus' (You all). Much appreciated. 

Thanks for all very nice discussion and very nice refrences

Hello everyone, I would like to know what you think of this case
a patient with meconium aspiration syndrome, which developed pulmonary hypertension. It is found in high frequency with a draguer v500. 4000g weight
with the following setting, 6hz 16 map 80fio2 deltap 50, dco2 800,
with good oxygenation but persistence of hypercapnia. what allowed me to download fio2 and map but not the rest.
What strategy would you use?

 

the last eab the co2 was 78, this ventilates with a volume of 3kg and by the weight the dco2 of 800 is fine, Question until value would rise the parameters and how they would change for better ventilation

what is your target PCO2

50 a 55