A randomized clinical trial of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus conventional weaning mode in patients with COPD and prolonged mechanical ventilation

Proportional modes to hasten weaning

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to examine the current state of the evidence, including several recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses, to determine if proportional modes of ventilation have the potential to hasten weaning from mechanical ventilation for adult critically ill patients, compared to pressure support ventilation (PSV), the current standard of care during the recovery and weaning phases of mechanical ventilation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Proportional assist ventilation (PAV) and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) are two commercially available proportional modes that have been studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although several feasibility studies were not powered to detect differences in clinical outcomes, emerging evidence suggests that both PAV and NAVA may reduce duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and hospital mortality compared to PSV, as shown in some small, primarily single-centre studies. Recent meta-analyses suggest that PAV shortens duration of mechanical ventilation and improves weaning success rate, and NAVA may reduce ICU and hospital mortality.

SUMMARY

The current state of the evidence suggests that proportional modes may hasten weaning from mechanical ventilation, but larger, multicentre RCTS are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation, Weaning, and the Role of Tracheostomy

Depending on the definitional criteria used, approximately 5% to 10% of critical adults will require prolonged mechanical ventilation with longer-term outcomes that are worse than those ventilated for a shorter duration. Outcomes are affected by patient characteristics before critical illness and its severity but also by organizational characteristics and care models. Definitive trials of interventions to inform care activities, such as ventilator weaning, upper airway management, rehabilitation, and nutrition specific to the prolonged mechanical ventilation patient population, are lacking. A structured and individualized approach developed by the multiprofessional team in discussion with the patient and their family is warranted.

Comparison of clinical outcomes in critical patients undergoing different mechanical ventilation modes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the effects of different mechanical ventilation modes on critical patients.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception to November 15, 2022 for randomized controlled trials on the application of different mechanical ventilation modes in critical patients. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. R4.2.1 was used for this network meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-eight RCTs involving 3,189 patients were included. The interventions in these RCTs included NAVA (neurally adjusted ventilatory assist), PAV (proportional assist ventilation), ASV (adaptive support ventilation), Smartcare/PS (Smartcare/pressure support), PSV (pressure support ventilation), PSV_ATC (pressure support ventilation_automatic tube compensation), and SIMV (synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation). The network meta-analysis showed that, compared with the PSV group, there was no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, and hospital stay between NAVA, SIMV, AVS, PAV, Smartcare/PS, and PSV_ATC groups. Compared with PSV, PAV improved the success rate of withdrawal of ventilator [OR = 3.07, 95%CI (1.21, 8.52)]. Compared with PSV and PAV, NAVA reduced mortality in the ICU [OR = 0.63, 95%CI (0.43, 0.93); OR = 0.45, 95%CI (0.21, 0.97)].

Conclusion

NAVA can reduce mortality in ICU, and PAV may increase the risk of withdrawal of the ventilator. There was no significant difference between PSV and other mechanical ventilation modes (NAVA, SIMV, AVS, PAV, Smartcare/PS, and PSV_ATC) in the duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, or hospital stay. Due to the limitations, more high-quality studies are needed to verify these findings.

Respiratory Care Management of COPD Exacerbations

A COPD exacerbation is characterized by an increase in symptoms such as dyspnea, cough, and sputum production that worsens over a period of 2 weeks. Exacerbations are common. Respiratory therapists and physicians in an acute care setting often treat these patients. Targeted O2 therapy improves outcomes and should be titrated to an SpO2 of 88-92%. Arterial blood gases remain the standard approach to assessing gas exchange in patients with COPD exacerbation. The limitations of arterial blood gas surrogates (pulse oximetry, capnography, transcutaneous monitoring, peripheral venous blood gases) should be appreciated so that they can be used wisely. Inhaled short-acting bronchodilators can be provided by nebulizer (jet or mesh), pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI), pMDI with spacer or valved holding chamber, soft mist inhaler, or dry powder inhaler. The available evidence for the use of heliox for COPD exacerbation is weak. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is standard therapy for patients who present with COPD exacerbation and is supported by clinical practice guidelines. Robust high-level evidence with patient important outcomes is lacking for the use of high-flow nasal cannula in patients with COPD exacerbation. Management of auto-PEEP is the priority in mechanically ventilated patients with COPD. This is achieved by reducing airway resistance and decreasing minute ventilation. Trigger asynchrony and cycle asynchrony are addressed to improve patient-ventilator interaction. Patients with COPD should be extubated to NIV. Additional high-level evidence is needed before widespread use of extracorporeal CO2 removal. Care coordination can improve the effectiveness of care for patients with COPD exacerbation. Evidence-based practices improve outcomes in patients with COPD exacerbation.

Clinical outcomes in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation using NAVA and other ventilation modes - A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist mode (NAVA) benefit in mechanical ventilation (MV) patients with regard to clinically outcomes is still uncertain. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have addressed this issue, making it important to assess the real impact of NAVA in relation to these outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing NAVA ventilation mode versus the standard ventilation mode in critically ill adult patients admitted to the ICU with invasive MV. The main outcome was 28-days ventilatory free-days (VFD). Secondary outcomes were weaning failure, mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay and need for tracheostomy.

RESULTS

We included 5 RCTs (643 patients). The patients in the NAVA group had increased VFDs compared to the control group: mean difference (MD) 3.42 (95% CI 1.21 to 5.62, I² = 0%). NAVA and control groups did not differ in ICU mortality [OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.03), I2 = 41%]. NAVA mode was associated with a reduced incidence of weaning failure [OR 0.51 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.88), I² = 0%]. NAVA and control groups did not differ in the number of MV days: MD -1.9 days (95% CI -4.2 to 0.3, I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

NAVA mode has a modest impact on MV-free days and weaning success, with no association with improvements in other relevant clinical outcomes.

Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist in Acute Respiratory Failure-A Narrative Review

Maintaining spontaneous breathing has both potentially beneficial and deleterious consequences in patients with acute respiratory failure, depending on the balance that can be obtained between the protecting and damaging effects on the lungs and the diaphragm. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) is an assist mode, which supplies the respiratory system with a pressure proportional to the integral of the electrical activity of the diaphragm. This proportional mode of ventilation has the theoretical potential to deliver lung- and respiratory-muscle-protective ventilation by preserving the physiologic defense mechanisms against both lung overdistention and ventilator overassistance, as well as reducing the incidence of diaphragm disuse atrophy while maintaining patient–ventilator synchrony. This narrative review presents an overview of NAVA technology, its basic principles, the different methods to set the assist level and the findings of experimental and clinical studies which focused on lung and diaphragm protection, machine–patient interaction and preservation of breathing pattern variability. A summary of the findings of the available clinical trials which investigate the use of NAVA in acute respiratory failure will also be presented and discussed.

Comparison of advanced closed-loop ventilation modes with pressure support ventilation for weaning from mechanical ventilation in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA), proportional assist ventilation (PAV), adaptive support ventilation (ASV) and Smartcare pressure support (Smartcare/PS) with standard pressure support ventilation (PSV) regarding their effectiveness for weaning critically ill adults from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NAVA, PAV, ASV, or Smartcare/PS with PSV, in adult patients under IMV through July 28, 2021. Primary outcome was weaning success. Secondary outcomes included weaning time, total MV duration, reintubation or use of non-invasive MV (NIMV) within 48 h after extubation, in-hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, in-hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS) (PROSPERO registration No:CRD42021270299).

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs were finally included. Compared to PSV, NAVA was associated with significantly lower risk for in-hospital and ICU death and lower requirements for post-extubation NIMV. Moreover, PAV showed significant advantage over PSV in terms of weaning rates, MV duration and ICU LOS. No significant differences were found between ASV or Smart care/PS and PSV.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate certainty evidence suggest that PAV increases weaning success rates, shortens MV duration and ICU LOS compared to PSV. It is also noteworthy that NAVA seems to improve in-hospital and ICU survival.

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist as a weaning mode for adults with invasive mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Prolonged ventilatory support is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Partial support modes, especially pressure support ventilation, are frequently used in clinical practice but are associated with patient–ventilation asynchrony and deliver fixed levels of assist. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA), a mode of partial ventilatory assist that reduces patient–ventilator asynchrony, may be an alternative for weaning. However, the effects of NAVA on weaning outcomes in clinical practice are unclear.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Library from 2007 to December 2020. Randomized controlled trials and crossover trials that compared NAVA and other modes were identified in this study. The primary outcome was weaning success which was defined as the absence of ventilatory support for more than 48 h. Summary estimates of effect using odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI) were expressed.

Results

Seven studies (n = 693 patients) were included. Regarding the primary outcome, patients weaned with NAVA had a higher success rate compared with other partial support modes (OR = 1.93; 95% CI 1.12 to 3.32; P = 0.02). For the secondary outcomes, NAVA may reduce duration of mechanical ventilation (MD = − 2.63; 95% CI − 4.22 to − 1.03; P = 0.001) and hospital mortality (OR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.84; P = 0.004) and prolongs ventilator-free days (MD = 3.48; 95% CI 0.97 to 6.00; P = 0.007) when compared with other modes.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that the NAVA mode may improve the rate of weaning success compared with other partial support modes for difficult to wean patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03644-z.

Prolonged Weaning: S2k Guideline Published by the German Respiratory Society

Mechanical ventilation (MV) is an essential part of modern intensive care medicine. MV is performed in patients with severe respiratory failure caused by respiratory muscle insufficiency and/or lung parenchymal disease; that is, when other treatments such as medication, oxygen administration, secretion management, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), or nasal high-flow therapy have failed. MV is required for maintaining gas exchange and allows more time to curatively treat the underlying cause of respiratory failure. In the majority of ventilated patients, liberation or "weaning" from MV is routine, without the occurrence of any major problems. However, approximately 20% of patients require ongoing MV, despite amelioration of the conditions that precipitated the need for it in the first place. Approximately 40-50% of the time spent on MV is required to liberate the patient from the ventilator, a process called "weaning". In addition to acute respiratory failure, numerous factors can influence the duration and success rate of the weaning process; these include age, comorbidities, and conditions and complications acquired during the ICU stay. According to international consensus, "prolonged weaning" is defined as the weaning process in patients who have failed at least 3 weaning attempts, or require more than 7 days of weaning after the first spontaneous breathing trial (SBT). Given that prolonged weaning is a complex process, an interdisciplinary approach is essential for it to be successful. In specialised weaning centres, approximately 50% of patients with initial weaning failure can be liberated from MV after prolonged weaning. However, the heterogeneity of patients undergoing prolonged weaning precludes the direct comparison of individual centres. Patients with persistent weaning failure either die during the weaning process, or are discharged back to their home or to a long-term care facility with ongoing MV. Urged by the growing importance of prolonged weaning, this Sk2 Guideline was first published in 2014 as an initiative of the German Respiratory Society (DGP), in conjunction with other scientific societies involved in prolonged weaning. The emergence of new research, clinical study findings and registry data, as well as the accumulation of experience in daily practice, have made the revision of this guideline necessary. The following topics are dealt with in the present guideline: Definitions, epidemiology, weaning categories, underlying pathophysiology, prevention of prolonged weaning, treatment strategies in prolonged weaning, the weaning unit, discharge from hospital on MV, and recommendations for end-of-life decisions. Special emphasis was placed on the following themes: (1) A new classification of patient sub-groups in prolonged weaning. (2) Important aspects of pulmonary rehabilitation and neurorehabilitation in prolonged weaning. (3) Infrastructure and process organisation in the care of patients in prolonged weaning based on a continuous treatment concept. (4) Changes in therapeutic goals and communication with relatives. Aspects of paediatric weaning are addressed separately within individual chapters. The main aim of the revised guideline was to summarize both current evidence and expert-based knowledge on the topic of "prolonged weaning", and to use this information as a foundation for formulating recommendations related to "prolonged weaning", not only in acute medicine but also in the field of chronic intensive care medicine. The following professionals served as important addressees for this guideline: intensivists, pulmonary medicine specialists, anaesthesiologists, internists, cardiologists, surgeons, neurologists, paediatricians, geriatricians, palliative care clinicians, rehabilitation physicians, intensive/chronic care nurses, physiotherapists, respiratory therapists, speech therapists, medical service of health insurance, and associated ventilator manufacturers.

Factors affecting the use of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in the adult critical care unit: a clinician survey

Background

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) involves an intricate interaction between patient, clinician and technology. To improve our understanding of this complex intervention and to inform future trials, this survey aimed to examine clinician attitudes, beliefs and barriers to NAVA use in critically ill adults within an institution with significant NAVA experience.

Methods

A survey of nurses, doctors and physiotherapists in four Intensive Care Units (ICUs) of one UK university-affiliated hospital (75 NAVA equipped beds). The survey consisted of 39 mixed open and structured questions. The hospital had 8 years of NAVA experience prior to the survey.

Results

Of 466 distributed questionnaires, 301 (64.6%) were returned from 236 nurses (78.4%), 53 doctors (17.6%) and 12 physiotherapists (4.0%). Overall, 207/294 (70.4%) reported clinical experience. Most agreed that NAVA was safe (136/177, 76.8%) and clinically effective (99/176, 56.3%) and most perceived ‘improved synchrony’, ‘improved comfort’ and ‘monitoring the diaphragm’ to be key advantages of NAVA. ‘Technical issues’ (129/189, 68.3%) and ‘NAVA signal problems’ (94/180, 52.2%) were the most cited clinical disadvantage and cause of mode cross-over to Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV), respectively. Most perceived NAVA to be more difficult to use than PSV (105/174, 60.3%), although results were mixed when compared across different tasks. More participants preferred PSV to NAVA for initiating ventilator weaning (93/171 (54.4%) vs 29/171 (17.0%)). A key barrier to use and a consistent theme throughout was ‘low confidence’ in relation to NAVA use.

Conclusions

In addition to broad clinician support for NAVA, this survey describes technical concerns, low confidence and a perception of difficulty above that associated with PSV. In this context, high-quality training and usage algorithms are critically important to the design and of future trials, to clinician acceptance and to the clinical implementation and future success of NAVA.

Outcomes of ventilatory asynchrony in patients with inspiratory effort

Objective

To identify the relationship of patient-ventilator asynchrony with the level of sedation and hemogasometric and clinical results.

Methods

This was a prospective study of 122 patients admitted to the intensive care unit who underwent > 24 hours of invasive mechanical ventilation with inspiratory effort. In the first 7 days of ventilation, patient-ventilator asynchrony was evaluated daily for 30 minutes. Severe patient-ventilator asynchrony was defined as an asynchrony index > 10%.

Results

A total of 339,652 respiratory cycles were evaluated in 504 observations. The mean asynchrony index was 37.8% (standard deviation 14.1 - 61.5%). The prevalence of severe patient-ventilator asynchrony was 46.6%. The most frequent patient-ventilator asynchronies were ineffective trigger (13.3%), autotrigger (15.3%), insufficient flow (13.5%), and delayed cycling (13.7%). Severe patient-ventilator asynchrony was related to the level of sedation (ineffective trigger: p = 0.020; insufficient flow: p = 0.016; premature cycling: p = 0.023) and the use of midazolam (p = 0.020). Severe patient-ventilator asynchrony was also associated with hemogasometric changes. The persistence of severe patient-ventilator asynchrony was an independent risk factor for failure of the spontaneous breathing test, ventilation time, ventilator-associated pneumonia, organ dysfunction, mortality in the intensive care unit, and length of stay in the intensive care unit.

Conclusion

Patient-ventilator asynchrony is a frequent disorder in critically ill patients with inspiratory effort. The patient’s interaction with the ventilator should be optimized to improve hemogasometric parameters and clinical results. Further studies are required to confirm these results.

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation: a randomized controlled feasibility trial performed in patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

The clinical effectiveness of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has yet to be demonstrated, and preliminary studies are required. The study aim was to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of NAVA versus pressure support ventilation (PSV) in critically ill adults at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV).

METHODS

An open-label, parallel, feasibility RCT (n = 78) in four ICUs of one university-affiliated hospital. The primary outcome was mode adherence (percentage of time adherent to assigned mode), and protocol compliance (binary-≥ 65% mode adherence). Secondary exploratory outcomes included ventilator-free days (VFDs), sedation, and mortality.

RESULTS

In the 72 participants who commenced weaning, median (95% CI) mode adherence was 83.1% (64.0-97.1%) and 100% (100-100%), and protocol compliance was 66.7% (50.3-80.0%) and 100% (89.0-100.0%) in the NAVA and PSV groups respectively. Secondary outcomes indicated more VFDs to D28 (median difference 3.0 days, 95% CI 0.0-11.0; p = 0.04) and fewer in-hospital deaths (relative risk 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-0.9; p = 0.032) for NAVA. Although overall sedation was similar, Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) scores were closer to zero in NAVA compared to PSV (p = 0.020). No significant differences were observed in duration of MV, ICU or hospital stay, or ICU, D28, and D90 mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility trial demonstrated good adherence to assigned ventilation mode and the ability to meet a priori protocol compliance criteria. Exploratory outcomes suggest some clinical benefit for NAVA compared to PSV. Clinical effectiveness trials of NAVA are potentially feasible and warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01826890. Registered 9 April 2013.

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.

Patient-ventilator asynchrony in conventional ventilation modes during short-term mechanical ventilation after cardiac surgery: randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Studies regarding asynchrony in patients in the cardiac postoperative period are still only a few. The main objective of our study was to compare asynchronies incidence and its index (AI) in 3 different modes of ventilation (volume-controlled ventilation [VCV], pressure-controlled ventilation [PCV] and pressure-support ventilation [PSV]) after ICU admission for postoperative care.

METHODS

A prospective parallel randomised trialin the setting of a non-profitable hospital in Brazil. The participants were patients scheduled for cardiac surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to VCV or PCV modes of ventilation and later both groups were transitioned to PSV mode.

RESULTS

All data were recorded for 5 minutes in each of the three different phases: T1) in assisted breath, T2) initial spontaneous breath and T3) final spontaneous breath, a marking point prior to extubation. Asynchronies were detected and counted by visual inspection method by two independent investigators. Reliability, inter-rater agreement of asynchronies, asynchronies incidence, total and specific asynchrony indexes (AIt and AIspecific) and odds of AI ≥10% weighted by total asynchrony were analysed. A total of 17 patients randomly allocated to the VCV (n=9) or PCV (n=8) group completed the study. High inter-rated agreement for AIt (ICC 0.978; IC95%, 0,963-0.987) and good reliability (r=0.945; p<0.001) were found. Eighty-two % of patients presented asynchronies, although only 7% of their total breathing cycles were asynchronous. Early cycling and double triggering had the highest rates of asynchrony with no difference between groups. The highest odds of AI ≥10% were observed in VCV regardless the phase: OR 2.79 (1.36-5.73) in T1 vs T2, p=0.005; OR 2.61 (1.27-5.37) in T1 vs T3, p=0.009 and OR 4.99 (2.37-10.37) in T2 vs T3, p<0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high incidence of breathing asynchrony in postoperative cardiac patients, especially when initially ventilated in VCV. VCV group had a higher chance of AI ≥10% and this chance remained high in the following PSV phases.

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation in patient-ventilator interaction and clinical outcomes: a meta-analysis of clinical trials

Background

The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) with pressure support ventilation (PSV) in adult ventilated patients with patient-ventilator interaction and clinical outcomes.

Methods

The PubMed, the Web of Science, Scopus, and Medline were searched for appropriate clinical trials (CTs) comparing NAVA with PSV for the adult ventilated patients. RevMan 5.3 was performed for comparing NAVA with PSV in asynchrony index (AI), ineffective efforts, auto-triggering, double asynchrony, premature asynchrony, breathing pattern (Peak airway pressure (Paw_peek), mean airway pressure (Paw_mean), tidal volume (V_T, mL/kg), minute volume (MV), respiratory muscle unloading (peak electricity of diaphragm (EAdi_peak), P 0.1, V_T/EAdi), clinical outcomes (ICU mortality, duration of ventilation days, ICU stay time, hospital stay time).

Results

Our meta-analysis included 12 studies involving a total of 331 adult ventilated patients, AI was significantly lower in NAVA group [mean difference (MD) -12.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): -21.20 to -4.44, I²=88%], and using subgroup analysis, grouped by mechanical ventilation, the results showed that NAVA also had lower AI than PSV (Mechanical ventilation, MD -9.52, 95% CI: -17.85 to -1.20, I²=87%), (Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), MD -24.55, 95% CI: -35.40 to -13.70, I²=0%). NAVA was significantly lower than the PSV in auto-triggering (MD -0.28, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.05, I²=10%), and premature triggering (MD -2.49, 95% CI: -3.77 to -1.21, I²=29%). There were no significant differences in double triggering, ineffective efforts, breathing pattern (Paw_mean, Paw_peak, V_T, MV), and respiratory muscle unloading (EAdi_peak, P 0.1, V_T/EAdi). For clinical outcomes, NAVA was significantly lower than the PSV (MD -2.82, 95% CI: -5.55 to -0.08, I²=0%) in the duration of ventilation, but two groups did not show significant differences in ICU mortality, ICU stay time, and hospital stay time.

Conclusions

NAVA is more beneficial in patient-ventilator interaction than PSV, and could decrease the duration of ventilation.

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) versus pressure support ventilation: patient-ventilator interaction during invasive ventilation delivered by tracheostomy

BACKGROUND

Prolonged weaning is a major issue in intensive care patients and tracheostomy is one of the last resort options. Optimized patient-ventilator interaction is essential to weaning. The purpose of this study was to compare patient-ventilator synchrony between pressure support ventilation (PSV) and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) in a selected population of tracheostomised patients.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, sequential, non-randomized and single-centre study. Two recording periods of 60 min of airway pressure, flow, and electrical activity of the diaphragm during PSV and NAVA were recorded in a random assignment and eight periods of 1 min were analysed for each mode. We searched for macro-asynchronies (ineffective, double, and auto-triggering) and micro-asynchronies (inspiratory trigger delay, premature, and late cycling). The number and type of asynchrony events per minute and asynchrony index (AI) were determined. The two respiratory phases were compared using the non-parametric Wilcoxon test after testing the equality of the two variances (F-Test).

RESULTS

Among the 61 patients analysed, the total AI was lower in NAVA than in PSV mode: 2.1% vs 14% (p < 0.0001). This was mainly due to a decrease in the micro-asynchronies index: 0.35% vs 9.8% (p < 0.0001). The occurrence of macro-asynchronies was similar in both ventilator modes except for double triggering, which increased in NAVA. The tidal volume (ml/kg) was lower in NAVA than in PSV (5.8 vs 6.2, p < 0.001), and the respiratory rate was higher in NAVA than in PSV (28 vs 26, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

NAVA appears to be a promising ventilator mode in tracheotomised patients, especially for those requiring prolonged weaning due to the decrease in asynchronies.

Proportional modes versus pressure support ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Proportional modes (proportional assist ventilation, PAV, and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist, NAVA) could improve patient–ventilator interaction and consequently may be efficient as a weaning mode. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine whether proportional modes improved patient–ventilator interaction and whether they had an impact on the weaning success and length of mechanical ventilation, in comparison with PSV.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through May 13, 2018. We included both parallel-group and crossover randomized studies that examined the efficacy of proportional modes in comparison with PSV in mechanically ventilated adults. The primary outcomes were (1) asynchrony index (AI), (2) weaning failure, and (3) duration of mechanical ventilation.

Results

We included 15 studies (four evaluated PAV, ten evaluated NAVA, and one evaluated both modes). Although the use of proportional modes was not associated with a reduction in AI (WMD − 1.43; 95% CI − 3.11 to 0.25; p = 0.096; PAV—one study, and NAVA—seven studies), the use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in patients with AI > 10% (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.04–0.58; p = 0.006; PAV—two studies, and NAVA—five studies), compared with PSV. There was a significant heterogeneity among studies for AI, especially with NAVA. Compared with PSV, use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in weaning failure (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.26–0.75; p = 0.003; PAV—three studies) and duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD − 1.78 days; 95% CI − 3.24 to − 0.32; p = 0.017; PAV—three studies, and NAVA—two studies). Reduced duration of mechanical ventilation was found with PAV but not with NAVA.

Conclusion

The use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in the incidence with AI > 10%, weaning failure and duration of mechanical ventilation, compared with PSV. However, reduced weaning failure and duration of mechanical ventilation were found with only PAV. Due to a significant heterogeneity among studies and an insufficient number of studies, further investigation seems warranted to better understand the impact of proportional modes.

Clinical trial registration PROSPERO registration number, CRD42017059791. Registered 20 March 2017

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-018-0470-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) or Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) during spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a crossover trial

Background

Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) is a proportional ventilatory mode that uses the electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) to offer ventilatory assistance in proportion to patient effort. NAVA has been increasingly used for critically ill patients, but it has not been evaluated during spontaneous breathing trials (SBT). We designed a pilot trial to assess the feasibility of using NAVA during SBTs, and to compare the breathing pattern and patient-ventilator asynchrony of NAVA with Pressure Support (PSV) during SBTs.

Methods

We conducted a crossover trial in the ICU of a university hospital in Brazil and included mechanically ventilated patients considered ready to undergo an SBT on the day of the study. Patients underwent two SBTs in randomized order: 30 min in PSV of 5 cmH₂O or NAVA titrated to generate equivalent peak airway pressure (Paw), with a positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cmH₂O. The ICU team, blinded to ventilatory mode, evaluated whether patients passed each SBT. We captured flow, Paw and electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) from the ventilator and used it to calculate respiratory rate (RR), tidal volume (VT), and EAdi. Detection of asynchrony events used waveform analysis and we calculated the asynchrony index as the number of asynchrony events divided by the number of neural cycles.

Results

We included 20 patients in the study. All patients passed the SBT in PSV, and three failed the SBT in NAVA. Five patients were reintubated and the extubation failure rate was 25% (95% CI 9–49%). Respiratory parameters were similar in the two modes: VT = 6.1 (5.5–6.5) mL/Kg in NAVA vs. 5.5 (4.8–6.1) mL/Kg in PSV (p = 0.076) and RR = 27 (17–30) rpm in NAVA vs. 26 (20–30) rpm in PSV, p = 0.55. NAVA reduced AI, with a median of 11.5% (4.2–19.7) compared to 24.3% (6.3–34.3) in PSV (p = 0.033).

Conclusions

NAVA reduces patient-ventilator asynchrony index and generates a respiratory pattern similar to PSV during SBTs. Patients considered ready for mechanical ventilation liberation may be submitted to an SBT in NAVA using the same objective criteria used for SBTs in PSV.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01337271), registered April 12, 2011.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12890-017-0484-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.