Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:

Response to Olsen, et al. study comparing SIMV & PSV

Journal of Perinatology volume 23, pages 434–435 (2003)Cite this article

To the Editor:

Olsen et al.1 compared SIMV and PSV with volume guarantee (VG) and, based on their findings, they do not recommend the routine use of PSV+VG. We are concerned about what we believe to be rather strong negative conclusions of the authors, especially because we have major concerns about the study design, data acquisition, and data interpretation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Olsen SL, Thibault DW, Truog WE . Crossover trial comparing pressure support with synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation. J Perinatol 2002; 22:461–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Graziani LJ, Spitzer AR, Mitchell DG et al. Mechanical ventilation in preterm infants: neurosonographic and developmental studies. Pediatrics 1992; 90:515–522.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dreyfuss D, Basset G, Soler P, Saumon G . High inflation pressure pulmonary edema: respective effects of high airway pressure, high tidal volume and positive end-expiratory pressure. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988;137:1159–1164.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Keszler M, Abubakar KM . Volume targeted mechanical ventilation of newborns maintains more stable tidal volume but does not prevent hypocarbia in the first 24 hours of life. Pediatr Res 1999;45:307A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hummler H, Gerhardt T, Gonzalez A, Claure N, Everett R, Bancalari E . Influence of different methods of synchronized mechanical ventilation on ventilation, gas exchange, patient effort, and blood pressure fluctuations in premature neonates. Pediatr Pulmonol 1996;22:305–313.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mrozek JD, Bendel-Stenzel EM, Meyers PA, Bing DR, Connett JE, Mammel MC . Randomized controlled trial of volume-targeted synchronized ventilation and conventional intermittent mandatory ventilation following initial exogenous surfactant therapy. Pediatr Pulmonol 2000;29:11–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Abubakar KM, Keszler M . Patient-ventilator interactions in newer modes of mechanical ventilation. Pediatr Pulmonol 2001;32:71–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC

    Martin Keszler MD & Kabir M Abubakar MD

  2. Children's Hospital — St. Paul, St. Paul, MN

    Mark C Mammel MD

Authors
  1. Martin Keszler MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kabir M Abubakar MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark C Mammel MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keszler, M., Abubakar, K. & Mammel, M. Response to Olsen, et al. study comparing SIMV & PSV. J Perinatol 23, 434–435 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7210956

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7210956

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links