BACKGROUND:Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) is a new mode of mechanical ventilation that delivers ventilatory assist in proportion to the electrical activity of the diaphragm. This study aimed to compare the ventilatory and gas exchange effects between NAVA and pressure support ventilation (PSV) during the weaning phase of critically ill patients who required mechanical ventilation subsequent to surgery. METHODS:Fifteen patients, the majority of whom underwent abdominal surgery, were enrolled. They were ventilated with PSV and NAVA for 24 h each in a randomized crossover order. The ventilatory parameters and gas exchange effects produced by the two ventilation modes were compared. The variability of the ventilatory parameters was also evaluated by the coefficient of variation (SD to mean ratio). RESULTS: Two patients failed to shift to NAVA because of postoperative bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis, and one patient interrupted the study because of worsening of his sickness. In the other 12 cases, the 48 h of the study protocol were completed, using both ventilation modes, with no signs of intolerance or complications. The Pao2/Fio2 (mean ± SD) ratio in NAVA was significantly higher than with PSV (264 ± 71 vs. 230 ± 75 mmHg, P < 0.05). Paco2 did not differ significantly between the two modes. The tidal volume (median [interquartile range]) with NAVA was significantly lower than with PSV (7.0 [6.4-8.6] vs. 6.5 [6.3-7.4] ml/kg predicted body weight, P < 0.05).Variability of insufflation airway pressure, tidal volume, and minute ventilation were significantly higher with NAVA than with PSV. Electrical activity of the diaphragm variability was significantly lower with NAVA than with PSV. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PSV, respiratory parameter variability was greater with NAVA, probably leading in part to the significant improvement in patient oxygenation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) is a new mode of mechanical ventilation that delivers ventilatory assist in proportion to the electrical activity of the diaphragm. This study aimed to compare the ventilatory and gas exchange effects between NAVA and pressure support ventilation (PSV) during the weaning phase of critically illpatients who required mechanical ventilation subsequent to surgery. METHODS: Fifteen patients, the majority of whom underwent abdominal surgery, were enrolled. They were ventilated with PSV and NAVA for 24 h each in a randomized crossover order. The ventilatory parameters and gas exchange effects produced by the two ventilation modes were compared. The variability of the ventilatory parameters was also evaluated by the coefficient of variation (SD to mean ratio). RESULTS: Two patients failed to shift to NAVA because of postoperative bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis, and one patient interrupted the study because of worsening of his sickness. In the other 12 cases, the 48 h of the study protocol were completed, using both ventilation modes, with no signs of intolerance or complications. The Pao2/Fio2 (mean ± SD) ratio in NAVA was significantly higher than with PSV (264 ± 71 vs. 230 ± 75 mmHg, P < 0.05). Paco2 did not differ significantly between the two modes. The tidal volume (median [interquartile range]) with NAVA was significantly lower than with PSV (7.0 [6.4-8.6] vs. 6.5 [6.3-7.4] ml/kg predicted body weight, P < 0.05).Variability of insufflation airway pressure, tidal volume, and minute ventilation were significantly higher with NAVA than with PSV. Electrical activity of the diaphragm variability was significantly lower with NAVA than with PSV. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PSV, respiratory parameter variability was greater with NAVA, probably leading in part to the significant improvement in patient oxygenation.
Authors: Lluis Blanch; Bernat Sales; Jaume Montanya; Umberto Lucangelo; Oscar Garcia-Esquirol; Ana Villagra; Encarna Chacon; Anna Estruga; Massimo Borelli; Ma Jose Burgueño; Joan C Oliva; Rafael Fernandez; Jesus Villar; Robert Kacmarek; Gastón Murias Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: A Demoule; M Clavel; C Rolland-Debord; S Perbet; N Terzi; A Kouatchet; F Wallet; H Roze; F Vargas; C Guerin; J Dellamonica; S Jaber; L Brochard; T Similowski Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Hodane Yonis; Laure Crognier; Jean-Marie Conil; Isabelle Serres; Antoine Rouget; Marie Virtos; Pierre Cougot; Vincent Minville; Olivier Fourcade; Bernard Georges Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 2.217