Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in patients with acute respiratory failure: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist vs. Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in Adults and Children With Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Patient-ventilator asynchrony is a common problem in mechanical ventilation (MV), resulting in increased complications of MV. Despite there being some pieces of evidence for the efficacy of improving the synchronization of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA), controversy over its physiological and clinical outcomes remain. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relative impact of NAVA or conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) modes on the important outcomes of adults and children with acute respiratory failure (ARF).

Methods

Qualified studies were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and additional quality evaluations up to October 5, 2021. The primary outcome was asynchrony index (AI); secondary outcomes contained the duration of MV, intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, the incidence rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia, pH, and Partial Pressure of Carbon Dioxide in Arterial Blood (PaCO2). A statistical heterogeneity for the outcomes was assessed using the I ² test. A data analysis of outcomes using odds ratio (OR) for ICU mortality and ventilator-associated pneumonia incidence and mean difference (MD) for AI, duration of MV, pH, and PaCO2, with 95% confidence interval (CI), was expressed.

Results

Eighteen eligible studies (n = 926 patients) were eventually enrolled. For the primary outcome, NAVA may reduce the AI (MD = -18.31; 95% CI, -24.38 to -12.25; p < 0.001). For the secondary outcomes, the duration of MV in the NAVA mode was 2.64 days lower than other CMVs (MD = -2.64; 95% CI, -4.88 to -0.41; P = 0.02), and NAVA may decrease the ICU mortality (OR =0.60; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.86; P = 0.006). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, pH, and PaCO2 between NAVA and other MV modes.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that NAVA ameliorates the synchronization of patient-ventilator and improves the important clinical outcomes of patients with ARF compared with CMV modes.

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in acute respiratory failure: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

We hypothesized that neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) compared to conventional lung-protective mechanical ventilation (MV) decreases duration of MV and mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF).

METHODS

We carried out a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in patients with ARF from several etiologies. Intubated patients ventilated for ≤ 5 days expected to require MV for ≥ 72 h and able to breathe spontaneously were eligible for enrollment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned based on balanced treatment assignments with a computerized randomization allocation sequence to two ventilatory strategies: (1) lung-protective MV (control group), and (2) lung-protective MV with NAVA (NAVA group). Allocation concealment was maintained at all sites during the trial. Primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days. Secondary outcome was all-cause hospital mortality. All analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

Between March 2014 and October 2019, we enrolled 306 patients and randomly assigned 153 patients to the NAVA group and 153 to the control group. Median VFDs were higher in the NAVA than in the control group (22 vs. 18 days; between-group difference 4 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 8 days; p = 0.016). At hospital discharge, 39 (25.5%) patients in the NAVA group and 47 (30.7%) patients in the control group had died (between-group difference - 5.2%, 95% CI - 15.2 to 4.8, p = 0.31). Other clinical, physiological or safety outcomes did not differ significantly between the trial groups.

CONCLUSION

NAVA decreased duration of MV although it did not improve survival in ventilated patients with ARF.

Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist versus Pressure Support Ventilation in Difficult Weaning: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Difficult weaning frequently develops in ventilated patients and is associated with poor outcome. In neurally adjusted ventilatory assist, the ventilator is controlled by diaphragm electrical activity, which has been shown to improve patient-ventilator interaction. The objective of this study was to compare neurally adjusted ventilatory assist and pressure support ventilation in patients difficult to wean from mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

In this nonblinded randomized clinical trial, difficult-to-wean patients (n = 99) were randomly assigned to neurally adjusted ventilatory assist or pressure support ventilation mode. The primary outcome was the duration of weaning. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of successful weaning, patient-ventilator asynchrony, ventilator-free days, and mortality. Weaning duration was calculated as 28 days for patients under mechanical ventilation at day 28 or deceased before day 28 without successful weaning.

RESULTS

Weaning duration in all patients was statistically significant shorter in the neurally adjusted ventilatory assist group (n = 47) compared with the pressure support ventilation group (n = 52; 3.0 [1.2 to 8.0] days vs. 7.4 [2.0 to 28.0], mean difference: -5.5 [95% CI, -9.2 to -1.4], P = 0.039). Post hoc sensitivity analysis also showed that the neurally adjusted ventilatory assist group had shorter weaning duration (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.98). The proportion of patients with successful weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation was higher in neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (33 of 47 patients, 70%) compared with pressure support ventilation (25 of 52 patients, 48%; respiratory rate for neurally adjusted ventilatory assist: 1.46 [95% CI, 1.04 to 2.05], P = 0.026). The number of ventilator-free days at days 14 and 28 was statistically significantly higher in neurally adjusted ventilatory assist compared with pressure support ventilation. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist improved patient ventilator interaction. Mortality and length of stay in the intensive care unit and in the hospital were similar among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients difficult to wean, neurally adjusted ventilatory assist decreased the duration of weaning and increased ventilator-free days.

Effect of Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist on Patient-Ventilator Interaction in Mechanically Ventilated Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Patient-ventilator asynchrony is common among critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and has been associated with adverse outcomes. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist is a ventilatory mode that may lead to improved patient-ventilator synchrony. We conducted a systematic review to determine the impact of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist on patient-ventilator asynchrony, other physiologic variables, and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in comparison with conventional pneumatically triggered ventilatory modes.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, conference abstracts, and ClinicalTrials.gov until July 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts for randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (including crossover design) comparing the occurrence of patient-ventilator asynchrony between neurally adjusted ventilatory assist and pressure support ventilation during mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. The asynchrony index and severe asynchrony (i.e., asynchrony index > 10%) were the primary outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently extracted study characteristics and outcomes and assessed risk of bias of included studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 11,139 unique citations, 26 studies (522 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen trials were included in the meta-analysis using random effects models through the generic inverse variance method. In several different clinical scenarios, the use of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist was associated with significantly reduced asynchrony index (mean difference, -8.12; 95% CI, -11.61 to -4.63; very low quality of evidence) and severe asynchrony (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.76; moderate quality of evidence) as compared with pressure support ventilation. Furthermore, other measurements of asynchrony were consistently improved during neurally adjusted ventilatory assist.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist improves patient-ventilator synchrony; however, its effects on clinical outcomes remain uncertain. Randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether the physiologic efficiency of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist affects patient-important outcomes in critically ill adults.

Intubation rate, duration of noninvasive ventilation and mortality after noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA)

BACKGROUND

Asynchrony is a common problem in patients treated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has shown to improve patient-ventilator interaction. However, it is unknown whether NIV-NAVA improves outcomes compared to noninvasive pressure support (NIV-PS).

METHODS

This observational cohort study included patients 18 years or older receiving noninvasive ventilation using an oro-nasal face mask for more than 2 hours in a Danish ICU. The study included a NIV-NAVA cohort (year 2013-2015) and two comparison cohorts: (a) a historical NIV-PS cohort (year 2011-2012) before the implementation of NIV-NAVA at the ICU in 2013, and (b) a concurrent NIV-PS cohort (year 2013-2015). Outcomes of NIV-NAVA (intubation rate, duration of NIV and 90-day mortality) were assessed and compared using multivariable linear and logistic regression adjusted for relevant confounders.

RESULTS

The study included 427 patients (91 in the NIV-NAVA, 134 in the historic NIV-PS and 202 in the concurrent NIV-PS cohort). Patients treated with NIV-NAVA did not have improved outcome after adjustment for measured confounders. Actually, there were statistically imprecise higher odds for intubation in NIV-NAVA patients compared with both the historical [OR 1.48, CI (0.74-2.97)] and the concurrent NIV-PS cohort [OR 1.67, CI (0.87-3.19)]. NIV-NAVA might also have a longer length of NIV [63%, CI (19%-125%)] and [139%, CI (80%-213%)], and might have a higher 90-day mortality [OR 1.24, CI (0.69-2.25)] and [OR 1.39, CI (0.81-2.39)]. Residual confounding cannot be excluded.

CONCLUSION

This present study found no improved clinical outcomes in patients treated with NIV-NAVA compared to NIV-PS.

RELAx - REstricted versus Liberal positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without ARDS: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence for benefit of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is largely lacking for invasively ventilated, critically ill patients with uninjured lungs. We hypothesize that ventilation with low PEEP is noninferior to ventilation with high PEEP with regard to the number of ventilator-free days and being alive at day 28 in this population.  METHODS/DESIGN: The "REstricted versus Liberal positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without ARDS" trial (RELAx) is a national, multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with uninjured lungs who are expected not to be extubated within 24 h. RELAx will run in 13 ICUs in the Netherlands to enroll 980 patients under invasive ventilation. In all patients, low tidal volumes are used. Patients assigned to ventilation with low PEEP will receive the lowest possible PEEP between 0 and 5 cm H2O, while patients assigned to ventilation with high PEEP will receive PEEP of 8 cm H2O. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days and being alive at day 28, a composite endpoint for liberation from the ventilator and mortality until day 28, with a noninferiority margin for a difference between groups of 0.5 days. Secondary endpoints are length of stay (LOS), mortality, and occurrence of pulmonary complications, including severe hypoxemia, major atelectasis, need for rescue therapies, pneumonia, pneumothorax, and development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Hemodynamic support and sedation needs will be collected and compared.

DISCUSSION

RELAx will be the first sufficiently sized randomized controlled trial in invasively ventilated, critically ill patients with uninjured lungs using a clinically relevant and objective endpoint to determine whether invasive, low-tidal-volume ventilation with low PEEP is noninferior to ventilation with high PEEP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , ID: NCT03167580 . Registered on 23 May 2017.