Dataset Information

Comparing Noninvasive Ventilation Delivered Using Neurally-Adjusted Ventilatory Assist or Pressure Support in Acute Respiratory Failure.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of neurally-adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) during noninvasive ventilation (NIV) results in better patient-ventilator interaction. Whether this improves clinical outcomes lacks dedicated study.

Methods

In this randomized controlled trial, we compared NAVA with PSV for delivering NIV in consecutive subjects with de novo acute respiratory failure. The primary outcomes were NIV failure rates and 28-d mortality. The secondary outcomes were asynchrony index, NIV-related complications, and others.

Results

We enrolled 100 subjects (50 subjects each for NAVA and PSV, 60% male) with a mean ± SD age of 56.7 ± 12 y. There was no difference in NIV failure rates (30% vs 32%, P = .83) and 28-d mortality rates (18% vs 34%, P = .07) between the NAVA and PSV arms, respectively. The median asynchrony index was significantly lower with NAVA (6.7 vs 44.8, P < .001). The use of NAVA significantly reduced NIV-related complications (32% vs 58%, P = .01). In a post hoc analysis, the use of NAVA significantly reduced the 28-d mortality in subjects with COPD exacerbation.

Conclusions

The use of NAVA during NIV did not improve NIV failure rate or 28-d mortality in subjects with acute respiratory failure. However, patient-ventilator asynchrony and NIV-related complications were reduced with NAVA.

Trial registry

www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03271671).

SUBMITTER: Prasad KT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9994217 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing Noninvasive Ventilation Delivered Using Neurally-Adjusted Ventilatory Assist or Pressure Support in Acute Respiratory Failure.

Prasad Kuruswamy Thurai KT Gandra Raghava Rao RR Dhooria Sahajal S Muthu Valliappan V Aggarwal Ashutosh Nath AN Agarwal Ritesh R Sehgal Inderpaul Singh IS

Respiratory care 20200901 2

<h4>Background</h4>The use of neurally-adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) during noninvasive ventilation (NIV) results in better patient-ventilator interaction. Whether this improves clinical outcomes lacks dedicated study.<h4>Methods</h4>In this randomized controlled trial, we compared NAVA with PSV for delivering NIV in consecutive subjects with de novo acute respiratory failure. The primary outcomes were NIV failure rates and 28-d mortality. The secondary outcomes were asynchrony index, NIV-r ...[more]

PMID: 32873750

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNoninvasive ventilation (NIV) is generally delivered using pneumatically-triggered and cycled-off pressure support (PSP) through a mask. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) is the only ventilatory mode that uses a non-pneumatic signal, i.e., diaphragm electrical activity (EAdi), to trigger and drive ventilator assistance. A specific setting to generate neurally controlled pressure support (PSN) was recently proposed for delivering NIV by helmet. We compared PSN with PSP and NAVA during NIV using a facial mask, with respect to patient comfort, gas exchange, and patient-ventilator interaction and synchrony.MethodsThree 30-minute trials of NIV were randomly delivered to 14 patients immediately after extubation to prevent post-extubation respiratory failure: (1) PSP, with an inspiratory support ≥8 cmH2O; (2) NAVA, adjusting the NAVA level to achieve a comparable peak EAdi (EAdipeak) as during PSP; and (3) PSN, setting the NAVA level at 15 cmH2O/μV with an upper airway pressure (Paw) limit to obtain the same overall Paw applied during PSP. We assessed patient comfort, peak inspiratory flow (PIF), time to reach PIF (PIFtime), EAdipeak, arterial blood gases, pressure-time product of the first 300 ms (PTP300-index) and 500 ms (PTP500-index) after initiation of patient effort, inspiratory trigger delay (DelayTR-insp), and rate of asynchrony, determined as asynchrony index (AI%). The categorical variables were compared using the McNemar test, and continuous variables by the Friedman test followed by the Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (p < 0.017).ResultsPSN significantly improved patient comfort, compared to both PSP (p = 0.001) and NAVA (p = 0.002), without differences between the two latter (p = 0.08). PIF (p = 0.109), EAdipeak (p = 0.931) and gas exchange were similar between modes. Compared to PSP and NAVA, PSN reduced PIFtime (p < 0.001), and increased PTP300-index (p = 0.004) and PTP500-index (p = 0.001). NAVA and PSN significantly reduced DelayTR-insp, as opposed to PSP (p < 0.001). During both NAVA and PSN, AI% was <10% in all patients, while AI% was ≥10% in 7 patients (50%) with PSP (p = 0.023 compared with both NAVA and PSN).ConclusionsCompared to both PSP and NAVA, PSN improved comfort and patient-ventilator interaction during NIV by facial mask. PSN also improved synchrony, as opposed to PSP only.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03041402 . Registered (retrospectively) on 2 February 2017.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Effective synchronisation of infant respiratory effort with mechanical ventilation may allow adequate gas exchange to occur at lower peak airway pressures, potentially reducing barotrauma and volutrauma and development of air leaks and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. During neurally adjusted ventilatory assist ventilation (NAVA), respiratory support is initiated upon detection of an electrical signal from the diaphragm muscle, and pressure is provided in proportion to and synchronous with electrical activity of the diaphragm (EADi). Compared to other modes of triggered ventilation, this may provide advantages in improving synchrony. OBJECTIVES:Primary• To determine whether NAVA, when used as a primary or rescue mode of ventilation, results in reduced rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) or death among term and preterm newborn infants compared to other forms of triggered ventilation• To assess the safety of NAVA by determining whether it leads to greater risk of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), periventricular leukomalacia, or air leaks when compared to other forms of triggered ventilation Secondary• To determine whether benefits of NAVA differ by gestational age (term or preterm)• To determine whether outcomes of cross-over trials performed during the first two weeks of life include peak pressure requirements, episodes of hypocarbia or hypercarbia, oxygenation index, and the work of breathing SEARCH METHODS: We performed searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cohrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid SP (January 1966 to March 2017); Embase via Ovid SP (January 1980 to March 2017); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) via EBSCO host (1982 to March 2017); and the Web of Science (1985 to 2017). We searched abstracts from annual meetings of the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) (2000 to 2016); meetings of the European Society of Pediatric Research (published in Pediatric Research); and meetings of the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand (PSANZ) (2005 to 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases to March 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials including cross-over trials comparing NAVA with other modes of triggered ventilation (assist control ventilation (ACV),synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation plus pressure support (SIMV ± PS), pressure support ventilation (PSV), or proportional assist ventilation (PAV)) used in neonates. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Primary outcomes of interest from randomised controlled trials were all-cause mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD; defined as oxygen requirement at 28 days), and a combined outcome of all-cause mortality or BPD. Secondary outcomes were duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of air leak, incidence of IVH or periventricular leukomalacia, and survival with an oxygen requirement at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age.Outcomes of interest from cross-over trials were maximum fraction of inspired oxygen, mean peak inspiratory pressure, episodes of hypocarbia, and episodes of hypercarbia measured across the time period of each arm of the cross-over. We planned to assess work of breathing; oxygenation index, and thoraco-abdominal asynchrony at the end of the time period of each arm of the cross-over study. MAIN RESULTS:We included one randomised controlled study comparing NAVA versus patient-triggered time-cycled pressure-limited ventilation. This study found no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation, nor in rates of BPD, pneumothorax, or IVH. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Risks and benefits of NAVA compared to other forms of ventilation for neonates are uncertain. Well-designed trials are required to evaluate this new form of triggered ventilation.

Project description:IntroductionThe objective was to compare the impact of three assistance levels of different modes of mechanical ventilation; neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA), proportional assist ventilation (PAV), and pressure support ventilation (PSV) on major features of patient-ventilator interaction.MethodsPSV, NAVA, and PAV were set to obtain a tidal volume (VT) of 6 to 8 ml/kg (PSV₁₀₀, NAVA₁₀₀, and PAV₁₀₀) in 16 intubated patients. Assistance was further decreased by 50% (PSV₅₀, NAVA₅₀, and PAV₅₀) and then increased by 50% (PSV₁₅₀, NAVA₁₅₀, and PAV₁₅₀) with all modes. The three modes were randomly applied. Airway flow and pressure, electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi), and blood gases were measured. VT, peak EAdi, coefficient of variation of VT and EAdi, and the prevalence of the main patient-ventilator asynchronies were calculated.ResultsPAV and NAVA prevented the increase of VT with high levels of assistance (median 7.4 (interquartile range (IQR) 5.7 to 10.1) ml/kg and 7.4 (IQR, 5.9 to 10.5) ml/kg with PAV₁₅₀ and NAVA₁₅₀ versus 10.9 (IQR, 8.9 to 12.0) ml/kg with PSV₁₅₀, P <0.05). EAdi was higher with PAV than with PSV at level₁₀₀ and level₁₅₀. The coefficient of variation of VT was higher with NAVA and PAV (19 (IQR, 14 to 31)% and 21 (IQR 16 to 29)% with NAVA₁₀₀ and PAV₁₀₀ versus 13 (IQR 11 to 18)% with PSV₁₀₀, P <0.05). The prevalence of ineffective triggering was lower with PAV and NAVA than with PSV (P <0.05), but the prevalence of double triggering was higher with NAVA than with PAV and PSV (P <0.05).ConclusionsPAV and NAVA both prevent overdistention, improve neuromechanical coupling, restore the variability of the breathing pattern, and decrease patient-ventilator asynchrony in fairly similar ways compared with PSV. Further studies are needed to evaluate the possible clinical benefits of NAVA and PAV on clinical outcomes.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02056093 . Registered 18 December 2013.

Project description:BackgroundNeurally 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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).ConclusionsNAVA 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01337271 ), registered April 12, 2011.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Protective mechanical ventilation is recommended for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but it usually requires controlled ventilation and sedation. Using neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) or pressure support ventilation (PSV) could have additional benefits, including the use of lower sedative doses, improved patient-ventilator interaction and shortened duration of mechanical ventilation. We designed a pilot study to assess the feasibility of keeping tidal volume (VT) at protective levels with NAVA and PSV in patients with ARDS. METHODS:We conducted a prospective randomized crossover trial in five ICUs from a university hospital in Brazil and included patients with ARDS transitioning from controlled ventilation to partial ventilatory support. NAVA and PSV were applied in random order, for 15 min each, followed by 3 h in NAVA. Flow, peak airway pressure (Paw) and electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) were captured from the ventilator, and a software (Matlab, Mathworks, USA), automatically detected inspiratory efforts and calculated respiratory rate (RR) and VT. Asynchrony events detection was based on waveform analysis. RESULTS:We randomized 20 patients, but the protocol was interrupted for five (25%) patients for whom we were unable to maintain VT below 6.5 mL/kg in PSV due to strong inspiratory efforts and for one patient for whom we could not detect EAdi signal. For the 14 patients who completed the protocol, VT was 5.8 ± 1.1 mL/kg for NAVA and 5.6 ± 1.0 mL/kg for PSV (p = 0.455) and there were no differences in RR (24 ± 7 for NAVA and 23 ± 7 for PSV, p = 0.661). Paw was greater in NAVA (21 ± 3 cmH2O) than in PSV (19 ± 3 cmH2O, p = 0.001). Most patients were under continuous sedation during the study. NAVA reduced triggering delay compared to PSV (p = 0.020) and the median asynchrony Index was 0.7% (0-2.7) in PSV and 0% (0-2.2) in NAVA (p = 0.6835). CONCLUSIONS:It was feasible to keep VT in protective levels with NAVA and PSV for 75% of the patients. NAVA resulted in similar VT, RR and Paw compared to PSV. Our findings suggest that partial ventilatory assistance with NAVA and PSV is feasible as a protective ventilation strategy in selected ARDS patients under continuous sedation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01519258). Registered 26 January 2012, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01519258.

Project description:Assist in unison to the patient's inspiratory neural effort and feedback-controlled limitation of lung distension with neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) may reduce the negative effects of mechanical ventilation on right ventricular function.Heart-lung interaction was evaluated in 10 intubated patients with impaired cardiac function using esophageal balloons, pulmonary artery catheters and echocardiography. Adequate NAVA level identified by a titration procedure to breathing pattern (NAVAal), 50% NAVAal, and 200% NAVAal and adequate pressure support (PSVal, defined clinically), 50% PSVal, and 150% PSVal were implemented at constant positive end-expiratory pressure for 20 minutes each.NAVAal was 3.1?±?1.1cmH2O/?V and PSVal was 17?±?2 cmH20. For all NAVA levels negative esophageal pressure deflections were observed during inspiration whereas this pattern was reversed during PSVal and PSVhigh. As compared to expiration, inspiratory right ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (surrogating stroke volume) was 103?±?4%, 109?±?5%, and 100?±?4% for NAVAlow, NAVAal, and NAVAhigh and 101?±?3%, 89?±?6%, and 83?±?9% for PSVlow, PSVal, and PSVhigh, respectively (p?<?0.001 level-mode interaction, ANOVA). Right ventricular systolic isovolumetric pressure increased from 11.0?±?4.6 mmHg at PSVlow to 14.0?±?4.6 mmHg at PSVhigh but remained unchanged (11.5?±?4.7 mmHg (NAVAlow) and 10.8?±?4.2 mmHg (NAVAhigh), level-mode interaction p?=?0.005). Both indicate progressive right ventricular outflow impedance with increasing pressure support ventilation (PSV), but no change with increasing NAVA level.Right ventricular performance is less impaired during NAVA compared to PSV as used in this study. Proposed mechanisms are preservation of cyclic intrathoracic pressure changes characteristic of spontaneous breathing and limitation of right-ventricular outflow impedance during inspiration, regardless of the NAVA level.Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00647361, registered 19 March 2008.

Dataset Information

Comparing Noninvasive Ventilation Delivered Using Neurally-Adjusted Ventilatory Assist or Pressure Support in Acute Respiratory Failure.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registry

Publications

Comparing Noninvasive Ventilation Delivered Using Neurally-Adjusted Ventilatory Assist or Pressure Support in Acute Respiratory Failure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets