Federico Longhini1, Ling Liu2, Chun Pan2, Jianfeng Xie2, Gianmaria Cammarota3, Andrea Bruni4, Eugenio Garofalo4, Yi Yang2, Paolo Navalesi4, Haibo Qiu2. 1. Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Mater Domini, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy. longhini.federico@gmail.com. 2. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, School of Medicine, Nanjing, China. 3. Anesthesia and Intensive Care, "Maggiore della Carità" Hospital, Novara, Italy. 4. Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital Mater Domini, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with COPD exacerbation, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is strongly recommended. NIV is generally delivered by using patient triggered and flow-cycled pressure support through a face mask. A specific method to generate neurally-controlled pressure support has been shown to improve comfort and patient-ventilator interaction. In addition, the helmet interface was better tolerated by patients compared with a face mask. Herein, we compared neurally-controlled pressure support through a helmet with pressure support through a face mask with respect to subject comfort, breathing pattern, gas exchange, pressurization and triggering performance, and patient-ventilator synchrony. METHODS: Two 30-min trials of NIV were randomly delivered to 10 subjects with COPD exacerbation redundant: (1) pressure support through a face mask with inspiratory pressure support of ≥8 cm H2O to obtain a tidal volume of 6-8 mL/kg of ideal body weight; and (2) NAVA through a helmet, setting the neurally-adjusted ventilatory assist level at 15 cm H2O/μV, with an upper airway pressure limit to obtain the same overall airway pressure applied during pressure support through a face mask. We assessed subject comfort, breathing frequency, respiratory drive, arterial blood gases, pressure-time product (PTP) of the first 300 ms and 500ms after initiation of subject effort, inspiratory trigger delay, and rate of asynchrony determined as the asynchrony index. RESULTS:Median and interquartile range NAVA through a helmet improved comfort (7.0 [6.0-8.0]) compared with pressure support through a face mask (5.0 [4.7-5.2], P = .005). The breathing pattern was not different between the methods. Respiratory drive was slightly, although not significantly, reduced (P = .19) during NAVA through a helmet in comparison with pressure support through a face mask. Gas exchange was also not different between the trials. The PTP of the first 300 ms (P = .92) and PTP of the first 500 ms (P = .08) were not statistically different between trials, whereas triggering performance, patient-ventilator interaction, and synchrony were all improved by NAVA through a helmet compared with pressure support through a face mask. CONCLUSIONS: In the subjects with COPD with exacerbation, NAVA through a helmet improved comfort, triggering performance, and patient-ventilator synchrony compared with pressure support through a face mask.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In patients with COPD exacerbation, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is strongly recommended. NIV is generally delivered by using patient triggered and flow-cycled pressure support through a face mask. A specific method to generate neurally-controlled pressure support has been shown to improve comfort and patient-ventilator interaction. In addition, the helmet interface was better tolerated by patients compared with a face mask. Herein, we compared neurally-controlled pressure support through a helmet with pressure support through a face mask with respect to subject comfort, breathing pattern, gas exchange, pressurization and triggering performance, and patient-ventilator synchrony. METHODS: Two 30-min trials of NIV were randomly delivered to 10 subjects with COPD exacerbation redundant: (1) pressure support through a face mask with inspiratory pressure support of ≥8 cm H2O to obtain a tidal volume of 6-8 mL/kg of ideal body weight; and (2) NAVA through a helmet, setting the neurally-adjusted ventilatory assist level at 15 cm H2O/μV, with an upper airway pressure limit to obtain the same overall airway pressure applied during pressure support through a face mask. We assessed subject comfort, breathing frequency, respiratory drive, arterial blood gases, pressure-time product (PTP) of the first 300 ms and 500ms after initiation of subject effort, inspiratory trigger delay, and rate of asynchrony determined as the asynchrony index. RESULTS: Median and interquartile range NAVA through a helmet improved comfort (7.0 [6.0-8.0]) compared with pressure support through a face mask (5.0 [4.7-5.2], P = .005). The breathing pattern was not different between the methods. Respiratory drive was slightly, although not significantly, reduced (P = .19) during NAVA through a helmet in comparison with pressure support through a face mask. Gas exchange was also not different between the trials. The PTP of the first 300 ms (P = .92) and PTP of the first 500 ms (P = .08) were not statistically different between trials, whereas triggering performance, patient-ventilator interaction, and synchrony were all improved by NAVA through a helmet compared with pressure support through a face mask. CONCLUSIONS: In the subjects with COPD with exacerbation, NAVA through a helmet improved comfort, triggering performance, and patient-ventilator synchrony compared with pressure support through a face mask.
Authors: F Longhini; A Bruni; E Garofalo; P Navalesi; G Grasselli; R Cosentini; G Foti; A Mattei; M Ippolito; G Accurso; F Vitale; A Cortegiani; C Gregoretti Journal: Pulmonology Date: 2020-04-30
Authors: Hugo Neves; Vítor Parola; Rafael A Bernardes; Joana Sousa; Adriana Coelho; Maria Dos Anjos Dixe; Nuno Catela; Arménio Cruz Journal: Nurs Rep Date: 2022-07-17