PROSpect: PRone and OScillation PEdiatric Clinical Trial
Study ID: STU-2019-0488
Background and significance: although acute respiratory distress syndrome is a life-threatening and frequent problem experienced by thousands of children each year, little evidence supports best ventilation practices during their critical illness. For over 25 years, pediatric critical care clinicians have debated the risk-benefit ratio of supine versus prone positioning and conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) versus high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFoV) in the management of these young patients. Without pediatric-specific data, the debate of how best to care for children with severe Pediatric acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (PaRDS) will continue and prevent progress in the field of pediatric critical care.
in children with severe PaRDS: 1. To compare the effects of prone positioning with supine positioning on ventilator-free days (VFD). 2. To compare the effects of HFoV with CMV on VFD. Secondary: To compare the impact of these interventions on nonpulmonary organ failure-free days (oFFD).