Original Article
Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation in patient-ventilator interaction and clinical outcomes: a meta-analysis of clinical trials
Abstract
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 (Pawpeek), mean airway pressure (Pawmean), tidal volume (VT, mL/kg), minute volume (MV), respiratory muscle unloading (peak electricity of diaphragm (EAdipeak), P 0.1, VT/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 (Pawmean, Pawpeak, VT, MV), and respiratory muscle unloading (EAdipeak, P 0.1, VT/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.
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 (Pawpeek), mean airway pressure (Pawmean), tidal volume (VT, mL/kg), minute volume (MV), respiratory muscle unloading (peak electricity of diaphragm (EAdipeak), P 0.1, VT/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 (Pawmean, Pawpeak, VT, MV), and respiratory muscle unloading (EAdipeak, P 0.1, VT/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.
