Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation: a randomized controlled feasibility trial performed in patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation

Abstract Background The clinical effectiveness of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has yet to be demonstrated, and preliminary studies are required. The study aim was to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of NAVA versus pressure support ventilation (PSV) in crit...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Daniel J. Hadfield, Louise Rose, Fiona Reid, Victoria Cornelius, Nicholas Hart, Clare Finney, Bethany Penhaligon, Jasmine Molai, Clair Harris, Sian Saha, Harriet Noble, Emma Clarey, Leah Thompson, John Smith, Lucy Johnson, Phillip A. Hopkins, Gerrard F. Rafferty
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2020-05-01
Series:Critical Care
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13054-020-02923-5
id doaj-f57a7c46d8d3489294c5e16248f3de50
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f57a7c46d8d3489294c5e16248f3de502020-11-25T02:29:22ZengBMCCritical Care1364-85352020-05-0124111010.1186/s13054-020-02923-5Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation: a randomized controlled feasibility trial performed in patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilationDaniel J. Hadfield0Louise Rose1Fiona Reid2Victoria Cornelius3Nicholas Hart4Clare Finney5Bethany Penhaligon6Jasmine Molai7Clair Harris8Sian Saha9Harriet Noble10Emma Clarey11Leah Thompson12John Smith13Lucy Johnson14Phillip A. Hopkins15Gerrard F. Rafferty16Critical Care, King’s College HospitalFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King’s College LondonSchool of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King’s College LondonFaculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Imperial CollegeCentre for Human and Applied Physiological Sciences, King’s College LondonCritical Care, King’s College HospitalCritical Care, King’s College HospitalCritical Care, King’s College HospitalCritical Care, King’s College HospitalCritical Care, King’s College HospitalCritical Care, King’s College HospitalCritical Care, King’s College HospitalCritical Care, King’s College HospitalCritical Care, King’s College HospitalCritical Care, King’s College HospitalCritical Care, King’s College HospitalCentre for Human and Applied Physiological Sciences, King’s College LondonAbstract Background The clinical effectiveness of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has yet to be demonstrated, and preliminary studies are required. The study aim was to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of NAVA versus pressure support ventilation (PSV) in critically ill adults at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods An open-label, parallel, feasibility RCT (n = 78) in four ICUs of one university-affiliated hospital. The primary outcome was mode adherence (percentage of time adherent to assigned mode), and protocol compliance (binary—≥ 65% mode adherence). Secondary exploratory outcomes included ventilator-free days (VFDs), sedation, and mortality. Results In the 72 participants who commenced weaning, median (95% CI) mode adherence was 83.1% (64.0–97.1%) and 100% (100–100%), and protocol compliance was 66.7% (50.3–80.0%) and 100% (89.0–100.0%) in the NAVA and PSV groups respectively. Secondary outcomes indicated more VFDs to D28 (median difference 3.0 days, 95% CI 0.0–11.0; p = 0.04) and fewer in-hospital deaths (relative risk 0.5, 95% CI 0.2–0.9; p = 0.032) for NAVA. Although overall sedation was similar, Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) scores were closer to zero in NAVA compared to PSV (p = 0.020). No significant differences were observed in duration of MV, ICU or hospital stay, or ICU, D28, and D90 mortality. Conclusions This feasibility trial demonstrated good adherence to assigned ventilation mode and the ability to meet a priori protocol compliance criteria. Exploratory outcomes suggest some clinical benefit for NAVA compared to PSV. Clinical effectiveness trials of NAVA are potentially feasible and warranted. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01826890 . Registered 9 April 2013.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13054-020-02923-5Critical careWeaningInteractive ventilatory supportNAVA studiesRandomized controlled trial
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Daniel J. Hadfield
Louise Rose
Fiona Reid
Victoria Cornelius
Nicholas Hart
Clare Finney
Bethany Penhaligon
Jasmine Molai
Clair Harris
Sian Saha
Harriet Noble
Emma Clarey
Leah Thompson
John Smith
Lucy Johnson
Phillip A. Hopkins
Gerrard F. Rafferty
spellingShingle Daniel J. Hadfield
Louise Rose
Fiona Reid
Victoria Cornelius
Nicholas Hart
Clare Finney
Bethany Penhaligon
Jasmine Molai
Clair Harris
Sian Saha
Harriet Noble
Emma Clarey
Leah Thompson
John Smith
Lucy Johnson
Phillip A. Hopkins
Gerrard F. Rafferty
Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation: a randomized controlled feasibility trial performed in patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation
Critical Care
Critical care
Weaning
Interactive ventilatory support
NAVA studies
Randomized controlled trial
author_facet Daniel J. Hadfield
Louise Rose
Fiona Reid
Victoria Cornelius
Nicholas Hart
Clare Finney
Bethany Penhaligon
Jasmine Molai
Clair Harris
Sian Saha
Harriet Noble
Emma Clarey
Leah Thompson
John Smith
Lucy Johnson
Phillip A. Hopkins
Gerrard F. Rafferty
author_sort Daniel J. Hadfield
title Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation: a randomized controlled feasibility trial performed in patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation
title_short Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation: a randomized controlled feasibility trial performed in patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation
title_full Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation: a randomized controlled feasibility trial performed in patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation
title_fullStr Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation: a randomized controlled feasibility trial performed in patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation
title_full_unstemmed Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation: a randomized controlled feasibility trial performed in patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation
title_sort neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation: a randomized controlled feasibility trial performed in patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation
publisher BMC
series Critical Care
issn 1364-8535
publishDate 2020-05-01
description Abstract Background The clinical effectiveness of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has yet to be demonstrated, and preliminary studies are required. The study aim was to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of NAVA versus pressure support ventilation (PSV) in critically ill adults at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods An open-label, parallel, feasibility RCT (n = 78) in four ICUs of one university-affiliated hospital. The primary outcome was mode adherence (percentage of time adherent to assigned mode), and protocol compliance (binary—≥ 65% mode adherence). Secondary exploratory outcomes included ventilator-free days (VFDs), sedation, and mortality. Results In the 72 participants who commenced weaning, median (95% CI) mode adherence was 83.1% (64.0–97.1%) and 100% (100–100%), and protocol compliance was 66.7% (50.3–80.0%) and 100% (89.0–100.0%) in the NAVA and PSV groups respectively. Secondary outcomes indicated more VFDs to D28 (median difference 3.0 days, 95% CI 0.0–11.0; p = 0.04) and fewer in-hospital deaths (relative risk 0.5, 95% CI 0.2–0.9; p = 0.032) for NAVA. Although overall sedation was similar, Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) scores were closer to zero in NAVA compared to PSV (p = 0.020). No significant differences were observed in duration of MV, ICU or hospital stay, or ICU, D28, and D90 mortality. Conclusions This feasibility trial demonstrated good adherence to assigned ventilation mode and the ability to meet a priori protocol compliance criteria. Exploratory outcomes suggest some clinical benefit for NAVA compared to PSV. Clinical effectiveness trials of NAVA are potentially feasible and warranted. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01826890 . Registered 9 April 2013.
topic Critical care
Weaning
Interactive ventilatory support
NAVA studies
Randomized controlled trial
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13054-020-02923-5
work_keys_str_mv AT danieljhadfield neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT louiserose neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT fionareid neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT victoriacornelius neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT nicholashart neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT clarefinney neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT bethanypenhaligon neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT jasminemolai neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT clairharris neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT siansaha neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT harrietnoble neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT emmaclarey neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT leahthompson neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT johnsmith neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT lucyjohnson neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT phillipahopkins neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
AT gerrardfrafferty neurallyadjustedventilatoryassistversuspressuresupportventilationarandomizedcontrolledfeasibilitytrialperformedinpatientsatriskofprolongedmechanicalventilation
_version_ 1724833461230895104