PURPOSE: To determine if, compared with pressure support (PS), neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) reduces trigger delay, inspiratory time in excess, and the number of patient-ventilator asynchronies in intubated patients. METHODS: Prospective interventional study in spontaneously breathing patients intubated for acute respiratory failure. Three consecutive periods of ventilation were applied: (1) PS1, (2) NAVA, (3) PS2. Airway pressure, flow, and transesophageal diaphragmatic electromyography were continuously recorded. RESULTS: All results are reported as median (interquartile range, IQR). Twenty-two patients were included, 36.4% (8/22) having obstructive pulmonary disease. NAVA reduced trigger delay (ms): NAVA, 69 (57-85); PS1, 178 (139-245); PS2, 199 (135-256). NAVA improved expiratory synchrony: inspiratory time in excess (ms): NAVA, 126 (111-136); PS1, 204 (117-345); PS2, 220 (127-366). Total asynchrony events were reduced with NAVA (events/min): NAVA, 1.21 (0.54-3.36); PS1, 3.15 (1.18-6.40); PS2, 3.04 (1.22-5.31). The number of patients with asynchrony index (AI) >10% was reduced by 50% with NAVA. In contrast to PS, no ineffective effort or late cycling was observed with NAVA. There was less premature cycling with NAVA (events/min): NAVA, 0.00 (0.00-0.00); PS1, 0.14 (0.00-0.41); PS2, 0.00 (0.00-0.48). More double triggering was seen with NAVA, 0.78 (0.46-2.42); PS1, 0.00 (0.00-0.04); PS2, 0.00 (0.00-0.00). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard PS, NAVA can improve patient-ventilator synchrony in intubated spontaneously breathing intensive care patients. Further studies should aim to determine the clinical impact of this improved synchrony.
PURPOSE: To determine if, compared with pressure support (PS), neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) reduces trigger delay, inspiratory time in excess, and the number of patient-ventilator asynchronies in intubated patients. METHODS: Prospective interventional study in spontaneously breathing patients intubated for acute respiratory failure. Three consecutive periods of ventilation were applied: (1) PS1, (2) NAVA, (3) PS2. Airway pressure, flow, and transesophageal diaphragmatic electromyography were continuously recorded. RESULTS: All results are reported as median (interquartile range, IQR). Twenty-two patients were included, 36.4% (8/22) having obstructive pulmonary disease. NAVA reduced trigger delay (ms): NAVA, 69 (57-85); PS1, 178 (139-245); PS2, 199 (135-256). NAVA improved expiratory synchrony: inspiratory time in excess (ms): NAVA, 126 (111-136); PS1, 204 (117-345); PS2, 220 (127-366). Total asynchrony events were reduced with NAVA (events/min): NAVA, 1.21 (0.54-3.36); PS1, 3.15 (1.18-6.40); PS2, 3.04 (1.22-5.31). The number of patients with asynchrony index (AI) >10% was reduced by 50% with NAVA. In contrast to PS, no ineffective effort or late cycling was observed with NAVA. There was less premature cycling with NAVA (events/min): NAVA, 0.00 (0.00-0.00); PS1, 0.14 (0.00-0.41); PS2, 0.00 (0.00-0.48). More double triggering was seen with NAVA, 0.78 (0.46-2.42); PS1, 0.00 (0.00-0.04); PS2, 0.00 (0.00-0.00). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard PS, NAVA can improve patient-ventilator synchrony in intubated spontaneously breathing intensive care patients. Further studies should aim to determine the clinical impact of this improved synchrony.
Authors: J Garnacho-Montero; J Madrazo-Osuna; J L García-Garmendia; C Ortiz-Leyba; F J Jiménez-Jiménez; A Barrero-Almodóvar; M C Garnacho-Montero; M R Moyano-Del-Estad Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Laurence Vignaux; Frédéric Vargas; Jean Roeseler; Didier Tassaux; Arnaud W Thille; Michel P Kossowsky; Laurent Brochard; Philippe Jolliet Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Timothy D Girard; John P Kress; Barry D Fuchs; Jason W W Thomason; William D Schweickert; Brenda T Pun; Darren B Taichman; Jan G Dunn; Anne S Pohlman; Paul A Kinniry; James C Jackson; Angelo E Canonico; Richard W Light; Ayumi K Shintani; Jennifer L Thompson; Sharon M Gordon; Jesse B Hall; Robert S Dittus; Gordon R Bernard; E Wesley Ely Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-01-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daniel Tuchscherer; Werner J Z'graggen; Christina Passath; Jukka Takala; Christer Sinderby; Lukas Brander Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 17.440
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: Gianmaria Cammarota; Carlo Olivieri; Roberta Costa; Rosanna Vaschetto; Davide Colombo; Emilia Turucz; Federico Longhini; Francesco Della Corte; Giorgio Conti; Paolo Navalesi Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Karen G Mellott; Mary Jo Grap; Cindy L Munro; Curtis N Sessler; Paul A Wetzel; Jon O Nilsestuen; Jessica M Ketchum Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: Lise Piquilloud; Didier Tassaux; Emilie Bialais; Bernard Lambermont; Thierry Sottiaux; Jean Roeseler; Pierre-François Laterre; Philippe Jolliet; Jean-Pierre Revelly Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 17.440