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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |