Cardiorespiratory effects of NIV-NAVA, NIPPV, and NCPAP shortly after extubation in extremely preterm infants: A randomized crossover trial

Noninvasive neurally-adjusted ventilatory assist in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive neurally-adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) improves patient-ventilator synchrony and may reduce treatment failure in preterm infants compared with nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of NIV-NAVA in preterm infants with respiratory distress.

METHODS

Four investigators independently assessed the eligibility of studies in CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP databases, and extracted data. The included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NIV-NAVA with other noninvasive ventilation modalities in preterm infants. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The objective of the meta-analysis was to compare NIV-NAVA vs CPAP/NIPPV as a primary mode post extubation.

RESULTS

Five RCTs which examined 279 preterm infants were included. In the subgroup of post-extubation respiratory support, NIV-NAVA decreased treatment failure compared with NCPAP/NIPPV (risk ratio 0.29; 95% confidence interval [0.10, 0.81], 2 RCTs, 96 infants, low certainty of the evidence). NIV-NAVA did not significantly reduce the risk of treatment failure in the subgroup of primary respiratory support (very low certainty of the evidence). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes with low to very low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

In a small cohort with low certainty of evidence, NIV-NAVA may prevent reintubation in preterm infants. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to determine the effects and safety of NIV-NAVA in preterm infants.

Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) reduces extubation failures in preterm neonates-A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To analyse the evidence of non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) in preterm neonates compared to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and included studies where NIV-NAVA was analysed in preterm (<37 gestational weeks) born neonates. Our main outcomes were the need for endotracheal intubation, the need for surfactant therapy, and reintubation rates. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of five studies were included. The endotracheal intubation rate was 25% in the NIV-NAVA group and 26% in the nCPAP group (RR 0.91, CI: 0.56-1.48). The respective rates for surfactant therapy were 30% and 35% (RR 0.85, CI: 0.56-1.29). The reintubation rate in neonates previously invasively ventilated was 8% in the NIV-NAVA group and 29% in the nCPAP/NIPPV group (RR 0.29, 95%CI: 0.10-0.81). Evidence certainty was rated as low for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

NIV-NAVA as the primary respiratory support did not reduce the need for endotracheal intubation or surfactant therapy. NIV-NAVA seemed to reduce the reintubation rate after extubation in pre-term neonates.

NIV-NAVA versus non-invasive respiratory support in preterm neonates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the clinical and physiological outcomes of NIV-NAVA in preterm infants compared with other non-invasive respiratory support.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a meta-analysis of RCTs and randomized crossover studies comparing NIV-NAVA to other non-invasive strategies in preterm neonates.

RESULTS

NIV-NAVA was superior to other non-invasive support in maximum EAdi (MD - 0.66 µV; 95% CI - 1.17 to -0.15; p = 0.01), asynchrony index (MD - 49.8%; 95% CI - 63.1 to -36.5; p < 0.01), and peak inspiratory pressure (MD - 2.2 cmH2O; 95% CI - 2.7 to -1.7; p < 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in the incidences of intubation (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.56-1.48; p = 0.71), reintubation (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.45-1.16; p = 0.18), or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.37-1.60; p = 0.48).

CONCLUSION

NIV-NAVA was associated with improvements in maximum Edi, asynchrony index, and peak inspiratory pressure relative to other non-invasive respiratory strategies, without significant differences in clinical outcomes between groups.

Peri-extubation settings in preterm neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review: 1) peri-extubation settings; and 2) association between peri-extubation settings and outcomes in preterm neonates.

STUDY DESIGN

In this systematic review, studies were eligible if they reported patient-data on peri-extubation settings (objective 1) and/or evaluated peri-extubation levels in relation to clinical outcomes (objective 2). Data were meta-analyzed when appropriate using random-effects model.

RESULTS

Of 9681 titles, 376 full-texts were reviewed and 101 included. The pooled means of peri-extubation settings were summarized. For objective 2, three experimental studies were identified comparing post-extubation CPAP levels. Meta-analyses revealed lower odds for treatment failure [pooled OR 0.46 (95% CI 0.27-0.76); 3 studies, 255 participants] but not for re-intubation [pooled OR 0.66 (0.22-1.97); 3 studies, 255 participants] with higher vs. lower CPAP.

CONCLUSIONS

Summary of peri-extubation settings may guide clinicians in their own practices. Higher CPAP levels may reduce extubation failure, but more data on peri-extubation settings that optimize outcomes are needed.

Noninvasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilation versus Nasal Continuous or Intermittent Positive Airway Pressure for Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) is a newly developed noninvasive ventilation technique with promising clinical and ventilatory outcomes for preterm infants. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether NIV-NAVA has better clinical and ventilatory outcomes than nasal continuous airway pressure (NCPAP) or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPP) on premature infants. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NIV-NAVA with NCPAP or NIPP for preterm infants (gestational age: <37 weeks) were included. We evaluated the following outcomes in the neonatal intensive care unit: the desaturation rate, failure of noninvasive modality requiring intubation when received as the primary mode or the need for re-intubation after extubation from mechanical ventilation in the secondary mode (weaning), length of stay, and fraction of inspired oxygen. The mean difference and risk ratio were used to represent continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We included nine RCTs involving 339 preterm infants overall. NIV-NAVA showed similar clinical and ventilatory outcomes to NCPAP or NIPP, except for the maximum diaphragmatic electrical activity. The rate of failure of the noninvasive modality was not statistically different between NIV-NAVA and NCPAP. The pooled estimates for the maximum electrical activity were significantly reduced in NIV-NAVA compared with those in NIPP. The findings suggest that NIV-NAVA may be as safe and effective as NCPAP and NIPP for preterm neonates, particularly those who may not tolerate these alternative noninvasive methods. However, further trials are recommended for greater evidence.

Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) for preterm neonates after extubation

BACKGROUND

Nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) is a useful method for providing respiratory support after extubation. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) can augment NCPAP by delivering ventilator breaths via nasal prongs.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To determine the effects of management with NIPPV versus NCPAP on the need for additional ventilatory support in preterm infants whose endotracheal tube was removed after a period of intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Secondary objectives To compare rates of abdominal distension, gastrointestinal perforation, necrotising enterocolitis, chronic lung disease, pulmonary air leak, mortality, duration of hospitalisation, rates of apnoea and neurodevelopmental status at 18 to 24 months for NIPPV and NCPAP. To compare the effect of NIPPV versus NCPAP delivered via ventilators versus bilevel devices, and assess the effects of the synchronisation of ventilation, and the strength of interventions in different economic settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials of ventilated preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestational age (GA)) ready for extubation to non-invasive respiratory support. Interventions were NIPPV and NCPAP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. respiratory failure. Our secondary outcomes were 2. endotracheal reintubation, 3. abdominal distension, 4. gastrointestinal perforation, 5. necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), 6. chronic lung disease, 7. pulmonary air leak, 8. mortality, 9. hospitalisation, 10. apnoea and bradycardia, and 11. neurodevelopmental status. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials (2738 infants). Compared to NCPAP, NIPPV likely reduces the risk of respiratory failure postextubation (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.84; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11, 95% CI 8 to 17; 19 trials, 2738 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and endotracheal reintubation (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87; NNTB 12, 95% CI 9 to 25; 17 trials, 2608 infants, moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce pulmonary air leaks (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.87; NNTB 50, 95% CI 33 to infinite; 13 trials, 2404 infants; low-certainty evidence). NIPPV likely results in little to no difference in gastrointestinal perforation (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; 8 trials, 1478 infants, low-certainty evidence), NEC (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.15; 10 trials, 2069 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), chronic lung disease defined as oxygen requirement at 36 weeks (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; 9 trials, 2001 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and mortality prior to discharge (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.07; 11 trials, 2258 infants; low-certainty evidence). When considering subgroup analysis, ventilator-generated NIPPV likely reduces respiratory failure postextubation (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62; 1057 infants; I2 = 47%; moderate-certainty evidence), while bilevel devices (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17; 716 infants) or a mix of both ventilator-generated and bilevel devices likely results in little to no difference (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.02; 965 infants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

NIPPV likely reduces the incidence of extubation failure and the need for reintubation within 48 hours to one-week postextubation more effectively than NCPAP in very preterm infants (GA 28 weeks and above). There is a paucity of data for infants less than 28 weeks' gestation. Pulmonary air leaks were also potentially reduced in the NIPPV group. However, it has no effect on other clinically relevant outcomes such as gastrointestinal perforation, NEC, chronic lung disease or mortality. Ventilator-generated NIPPV appears superior to bilevel devices in reducing the incidence of respiratory failure postextubation failure and need for reintubation. Synchronisation used to deliver NIPPV may be important; however, data are insufficient to support strong conclusions. Future trials should enrol a sufficient number of infants, particularly those less than 28 weeks' GA, to detect differences in death or chronic lung disease and should compare different categories of devices, establish the impact of synchronisation of NIPPV on safety and efficacy of the technique as well as the best combination of settings for NIPPV (rate, peak pressure and positive end-expiratory). Trials should strive to match the mean airway pressure between the intervention groups to allow a better comparison. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist needs further assessment with properly powered randomised trials.

Ultrasonographic assessment of diaphragmatic function in preterm infants on non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) compared to nasal intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV): a prospective observational study

NIV-NAVA mode for respiratory support in preterm infants is not well-studied. This study aimed to describe the diaphragmatic function, diaphragmatic excursion (DE), and thickness fraction (DTF), in preterm infants < 30 weeks' gestation supported by NIV-NAVA compared to NIPPV using bedside ultrasonography. In this consecutive prospective study, DE, diaphragmatic thickness at end of expiration (DT_exp), end of inspiration (DT_ins), and DTF were assessed using bedside ultrasound. Lung aeration evaluation using lung ultrasound score (LUS) was performed for the two groups. Diaphragmatic measurements and LUS were compared for the 2 groups (NIV-NAVA group versus NIPPV group). Statistical analyses were conducted using the SPSS software version 22. Out of 70 infants evaluated, 40 were enrolled. Twenty infants were on NIV-NAVA and 20 infants on NIPPV with a mean [SD] study age of 25.7 [0.9] weeks and 25.1 [1.4] weeks respectively (p = 0.15). Baseline characteristics and respiratory parameters at the time of the scan showed no significant difference between groups. DE was significantly higher in NIV-NAVA with a mean SD of 4.7 (1.5) mm versus 3.5 (0.9) mm in NIPPV, p = 0.007. Additionally, the mean (SD) of DTF for the NIV-NAVA group was 81.6 (30) % vs 78.2 (27) % for the NIPPV group [p = 0.71]. Both groups showed relatively high LUS but no significant difference between groups [12.8 (2.6) vs 12.6 (2.6), p = 0.8].  Conclusion: Preterm infants managed with NIV-NAVA showed significantly higher DE compared to those managed on NIPPV. This study raises the hypothesis that NIV-NAVA could potentially improve diaphragmatic function due to its synchronization with patients' own breathing. Longitudinal studies to assess diaphragmatic function over time are needed.  Trial registry: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05079412). Date of registration September 30, 2021. What is Known: • NIV-NAVA utilizes diaphragmatic electrical activity to provide synchronized breathing support. • Evidence for the effect of NIV-NAVA on diaphragmatic thickness fraction (DTF) and excursion (DE) is limited. What is New: • Ultrasonographic assessment of diaphragmatic function (DTF and DE) is feasible. • In preterm infants, DE was significantly higher in infants supported with NIV-NAVA compared to those supported with NIPPV.

Cardiorespiratory measures shortly after extubation and extubation outcomes in extremely preterm infants

BACKGROUND

Nasal continuous positive airway pressure, nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation, and non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist are modes of non-invasive respiratory support. The objective was to investigate if cardiorespiratory measures performed shortly after extubation are associated with extubation outcomes and predictors of extubation success.

METHODS

Randomized crossover trial of infants with birth weight (BW) ≤ 1250 g undergoing their first extubation. Shortly after extubation, electrocardiogram and electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi) were recorded during 40 min on each mode. Measures of heart rate variability (HRV), diaphragmatic activity (Edi area, breath area and amplitude), and respiratory variability (RV) were computed on each mode and compared between infants with extubation success or failure (reintubation ≤ 7 days).

RESULTS

Twenty-three extremely preterm infants with median [IQR] gestational age 25.9 weeks [25.2-26.4] and BW 760 g [595-900] were included: 14 success and 9 failures. There were significant differences for HRV (very low-frequency power and sample entropy) and RV parameters (breath areas, amplitudes and expiratory times) between groups, with moderate strength (0.75-0.80 areas under ROC curves) in predicting success. Diaphragmatic activity measures were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In extremely preterm infants receiving non-invasive respiratory support shortly after extubation, several cardiorespiratory variability parameters were associated with successful extubation with moderate predictive accuracy.

IMPACT

Measures of cardiorespiratory variability, performed in extremely preterm infants while receiving NCPAP, NIPPV, and NIV-NAVA shortly after extubation, were significantly different between patients that succeeded or failed extubation. Cardiorespiratory variability measures had a moderate predictive accuracy for extubation success and can be potentially used as biomarkers, in recently extubated infants. Future investigations in this population may also consider including cardiorespiratory variability measures when assessing types of post-extubation respiratory support and promote individualized care.

NIV-NAVA versus NCPAP immediately after birth in premature infants: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether noninvasive-neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) decrease respiratory efforts compared to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) during the first hours of life.

METHODS

Twenty infants born between 28⁺⁰ and 31⁺⁶ weeks were randomized to NIV-NAVA or NCPAP. Positive end-expiratory pressure was constantly kept at 6 cmH₂O for both groups and the NAVA level was 1.0 cmH₂O/µV for NIV-NAVA group. The electrical activity of diaphragm (Edi) were recorded for the first two hours.

RESULTS

Peak and minimum Edi decreased similarly in both groups (P = 0.98 and P = 0.59, respectively). Leakages were higher in the NIV-NAVA group than in the NCPAP group (P < 0.001). The neural apnea defined as a flat Edi for ≥ 5 s were less frequent in NIV-NAVA group than in NCPAP group (P = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Immediately applied NIV-NAVA in premature infants did not reduce breathing effort, measured as peak Edi. However, NIV-NAVA decreased neural apneic episodes compared to NCPAP.