Noninvasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist Research Articles

Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) reduces extubation failures in preterm neonates-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To analyse the evidence of non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) in preterm neonates compared to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and included studies where NIV-NAVA was analysed in preterm (<37 gestational weeks) born neonates. Our main outcomes were the need for endotracheal intubation, the need for surfactant therapy, and reintubation rates. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A total of five studies were included. The endotracheal intubation rate was 25% in the NIV-NAVA group and 26% in the nCPAP group (RR 0.91, CI: 0.56-1.48). The respective rates for surfactant therapy were 30% and 35% (RR 0.85, CI: 0.56-1.29). The reintubation rate in neonates previously invasively ventilated was 8% in the NIV-NAVA group and 29% in the nCPAP/NIPPV group (RR 0.29, 95%CI: 0.10-0.81). Evidence certainty was rated as low for all outcomes. NIV-NAVA as the primary respiratory support did not reduce the need for endotracheal intubation or surfactant therapy. NIV-NAVA seemed to reduce the reintubation rate after extubation in pre-term neonates.

The Diaphragmatic Initiated Ventilatory Assist (DIVA) trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing rates of extubation failure in extremely premature infants undergoing extubation to non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus non-synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation

BackgroundInvasive mechanical ventilation contributes to bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), the most common complication of prematurity and the leading respiratory cause of childhood morbidity. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) may limit invasive ventilation exposure and can be either synchronized or non-synchronized (NS). Pooled data suggest synchronized forms may be superior. Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) delivers NIV synchronized to the neural signal for breathing, which is detected with a specialized catheter. The DIVA (Diaphragmatic Initiated Ventilatory Assist) trial aims to determine in infants born 240/7–276/7 weeks’ gestation undergoing extubation whether NIV-NAVA compared to non-synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NS-NIPPV) reduces the incidence of extubation failure within 5 days of extubation.MethodsThis is a prospective, unblinded, pragmatic, multicenter phase III randomized clinical trial. Inclusion criteria are preterm infants 24–276/7 weeks gestational age who were intubated within the first 7 days of life for at least 12 h and are undergoing extubation in the first 28 postnatal days. All sites will enter an initial run-in phase, where all infants are allocated to NIV-NAVA, and an independent technical committee assesses site performance. Subsequently, all enrolled infants are randomized to NIV-NAVA or NS-NIPPV at extubation. The primary outcome is extubation failure within 5 days of extubation, defined as any of the following: (1) rise in FiO2 at least 20% from pre-extubation for > 2 h, (2) pH ≤ 7.20 or pCO2 ≥ 70 mmHg; (3) > 1 apnea requiring positive pressure ventilation (PPV) or ≥ 6 apneas requiring stimulation within 6 h; (4) emergent intubation for cardiovascular instability or surgery. Our sample size of 478 provides 90% power to detect a 15% absolute reduction in the primary outcome. Enrolled infants will be followed for safety and secondary outcomes through 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age, discharge, death, or transfer.DiscussionThe DIVA trial is the first large multicenter trial designed to assess the impact of NIV-NAVA on relevant clinical outcomes for preterm infants. The DIVA trial design incorporates input from clinical NAVA experts and includes innovative features, such as a run-in phase, to ensure consistent technical performance across sites.Trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov, trial identifier NCT05446272, registered July 6, 2022.

Noninvasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilation versus Nasal Continuous or Intermittent Positive Airway Pressure for Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) is a newly developed noninvasive ventilation technique with promising clinical and ventilatory outcomes for preterm infants. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether NIV-NAVA has better clinical and ventilatory outcomes than nasal continuous airway pressure (NCPAP) or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPP) on premature infants. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NIV-NAVA with NCPAP or NIPP for preterm infants (gestational age: <37 weeks) were included. We evaluated the following outcomes in the neonatal intensive care unit: the desaturation rate, failure of noninvasive modality requiring intubation when received as the primary mode or the need for re-intubation after extubation from mechanical ventilation in the secondary mode (weaning), length of stay, and fraction of inspired oxygen. The mean difference and risk ratio were used to represent continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We included nine RCTs involving 339 preterm infants overall. NIV-NAVA showed similar clinical and ventilatory outcomes to NCPAP or NIPP, except for the maximum diaphragmatic electrical activity. The rate of failure of the noninvasive modality was not statistically different between NIV-NAVA and NCPAP. The pooled estimates for the maximum electrical activity were significantly reduced in NIV-NAVA compared with those in NIPP. The findings suggest that NIV-NAVA may be as safe and effective as NCPAP and NIPP for preterm neonates, particularly those who may not tolerate these alternative noninvasive methods. However, further trials are recommended for greater evidence.

Noninvasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist in Infants With Bronchiolitis: Respiratory Outcomes in a Single-Center, Retrospective Cohort, 2016-2018.

To describe our experience of using noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) in infants with bronchiolitis, its association with the evolution of respiratory effort, and PICU outcomes. Retrospective analysis of a prospectively curated, high-frequency electronic database. A PICU in a university-affiliated maternal-child health center in Canada. Patients younger than 2 years old who were admitted with a diagnosis of acute bronchiolitis and treated with NIV-NAVA from October 2016 to June 2018. None. Patient characteristics, as well as respiratory and physiologic parameters, including electrical diaphragmatic activity (Edi), were extracted from the electronic database. Respiratory effort was estimated using the modified Wood Clinical Asthma Score (mWCAS) and the inspiratory Edi. A comparison in the respiratory effort data was made between the 2 hours before and 2 hours after starting NIV-NAVA. In the two seasons, 64 of 205 bronchiolitis patients were supported with NIV-NAVA. These 64 patients had a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 52 days (32-92 d), and there were 36 of 64 males. Treatment with NIV-NAVA was used after failure of first-tier noninvasive respiratory support; 25 of 64 patients (39%) had at least one medical comorbidity. NIV-NAVA initiation was associated with a moderate decrease in mWCAS from 3.0 (IQR, 2.5-3.5) to 2.5 (IQR, 2.0-3.0; p < 0.001). NIV-NAVA initiation was also associated with a statistically significant decrease in Edi ( p < 0.01). However, this decrease was only clinically relevant in infants with a 2-hour baseline Edi greater than 20 μV; here, the before and after Edi was 44 μV (IQR, 33-54 μV) compared with 27 μV (IQR, 21-36 μV), respectively ( p < 0.001). Overall, six of 64 patients (9%) required endotracheal intubation. In this single-center retrospective cohort, in infants with bronchiolitis who were considered to have failed first-tier noninvasive respiratory support, the use of NIV-NAVA was associated with a rapid decrease in respiratory effort and a 9% intubation rate.

Detection of differences of cardiorespiratory metrics between non-invasive respiratory support modes using machine learning methods

Many preterm infants require invasive mechanical ventilation in the first days of life. Once ventilation is removed, non-invasive respiratory support assists the transition to spontaneous breathing. Three common support modes are Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), Non-Invasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NIV-NAVA), and Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV). Cardiorespiratory behavior under these supports is not well understood. We hypothesized that if behavior changed with the support, then machine learning should be able to distinguish them, and the most discriminatory features would indicate how the behaviors differ. To test this, we recorded cardiorespiratory signals from infants during CPAP, NIV-NAVA, and NIPPV immediately following extubation. Forty-five metrics related to the amplitude and frequency of these signals were computed at each time and six summary statistics computed for each metric. The feature set was reduced by principal component analysis and used to train a Random Forest classifier. We found that (1) Classification of the three modes performed poorly (accuracy = 58.6%); (2) Classification of CPAP from NIV-NAVA or NIPPV performed well (accuracy = 81.5%). Thus, cardiorespiratory behavior during CPAP is significantly different from NIV-NAVA or NIPPV. The features with the greatest discriminatory power were related to the amplitude of respiratory movements and the correlation between the ribcage and abdomen movements. These results serve to direct further investigation with clinical relevance. Thus, infants with shallow breathing may benefit from the support with largest amplitude respiratory movements, while infants with asynchronous chest and abdominal movements may benefit from the modality with the most correlated movements.

Patient-Ventilator Synchrony in Extremely Premature Neonates during Non-Invasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist or Synchronized Intermittent Positive Airway Pressure: A Randomized Crossover Pilot Trial

Introduction: Synchronization of non-invasive ventilation is challenging in extremely premature infants. We compared patient-ventilator synchrony between non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) using transdiaphragmatic (Edi) catheter and synchronized intermittent positive airway pressure (SiPAP) using an abdominal trigger. Methods: This study was a monocentric, randomized, crossover trial in premature infants born before 28 weeks of gestation, aged 3 days or more, and below 32 weeks postmenstrual age. NIV-NAVA and SiPAP were applied in a random order for 2 h with analysis of data from the second hour. The primary outcome was the asynchrony index. Results: Fourteen patients were included (median [IQR] gestational age at birth 25.6 (25.3–26.4) weeks, median [IQR] birth weight 755 [680–824] g, median [IQR] postnatal age 26.5 [19.8–33.8] days). The median (IQR) asynchrony index was significantly lower in NIV-NAVA versus SiPAP (49.9% [44.1–52.6] vs. 85.8% [74.2–90.9], p < 0.001). Ineffective efforts and auto-triggering were significantly less frequent in NIV-NAVA versus SiPAP (3.0% vs. 32.0% p < 0.001 and 10.0% vs. 26.6%, p = 0.004, respectively). Double triggering was significantly less frequent in SiPAP versus NIV-NAVA (0.0% vs. 9.0%, p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed for premature cycling and late cycling. Peak Edi and swing Edi were significantly lower in NIV-NAVA as compared to SiPAP (7.7 [6.1–9.9] vs. 11.0 [6.7–14.5] μV, p = 0.006; 5.4 [4.2–7.6] vs. 7.6 [4.3–10.8] μV, p = 0.007, respectively). No significant difference was observed between NIV-NAVA and SiPAP for heart rate, respiratory rate, COMFORTneo scores, apnoea, desaturations, or bradycardias. Discussion/Conclusion: NIV-NAVA markedly improves patient-ventilator synchrony as compared to SiPAP in extremely premature infants.

NIV-NAVA versus NCPAP immediately after birth in premature infants: A randomized controlled trial

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether noninvasive-neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) decrease respiratory efforts compared to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) during the first hours of life. MethodsTwenty infants born between 28+0 and 31+6 weeks were randomized to NIV-NAVA or NCPAP. Positive end-expiratory pressure was constantly kept at 6 cmH2O for both groups and the NAVA level was 1.0 cmH2O/µV for NIV-NAVA group. The electrical activity of diaphragm (Edi) were recorded for the first two hours. ResultsPeak and minimum Edi decreased similarly in both groups (P = 0.98 and P = 0.59, respectively). Leakages were higher in the NIV-NAVA group than in the NCPAP group (P < 0.001). The neural apnea defined as a flat Edi for ≥ 5 s were less frequent in NIV-NAVA group than in NCPAP group (P = 0.046). ConclusionsImmediately applied NIV-NAVA in premature infants did not reduce breathing effort, measured as peak Edi. However, NIV-NAVA decreased neural apneic episodes compared to NCPAP.

Noninvasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilation in Postextubation Stabilization of Preterm Infants: A Randomized Controlled Study

To compare the effects of noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) to nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) in achieving successful extubation in preterm infants. This prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial enrolled preterm infants born at <30weeks of gestation who received invasive ventilation. Participants were assigned at random to either NIV-NAVA or NCPAP after their first extubation from invasive ventilation. The primary outcome of the study was extubation failure within 72hours of extubation. Electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi) values were collected before extubation and at 1, 4, 12, and 24hours after extubation. A total of 78 infants were enrolled, including 35 infants in the NIV-NAVA group and 35 infants in the NCPAP group. Extubation failure within 72hours of extubation was higher in the NCPAP group than in the NIV-NAVA group (28.6% vs 8.6%; P=.031). The duration of respiratory support and incidence of severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia were similar in the 2 groups. Peak and swing Edi values were comparable before and at 1hour after extubation, but values at 4, 12, and 24hours after extubation were lower in the NIV-NAVA group compared with the NCPAP group. In the present trial, NIV-NAVA was more effective than NCPAP in preventing extubation failure in preterm infants. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02590757.

Outcomes of noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist and nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The benefits of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) in preterm infants are unclear. This study aimed to explore if noninvasive NAVA is more beneficial for preterm infants than nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP). Meta-analysis was performed in three clinical trials comprising two randomized controlled trials and one crossover study. We compared NIV-NAVA and NCPAP and reported treatment failure, mortality, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. Three studies including 173 patients (89 of whom underwent NIV-NAVA) were eligible for this meta-analysis. This review found no difference in treatment failure between NIVNAVA and NCPAP (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.84; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.10-0.14; I2=33%, P=0.23). Similarly, there was no difference in mortality (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.51-4.52, heterogeneity not applicable). Compared with NCPAP, NIVNAVA significantly reduced the use of caffeine (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.98, I2=71%, P=0.03). Compared with NCPAP, there is insufficient evidence to conclude on the benefits or harm of NIV-NAVA therapy for preterm infants. The findings of this review should be confirmed using methodologically rigorous and adequately powered clinical trials.

Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in preterm infants with RDS: effect of changing NAVA levels.

We aimed to examine the effect of changing levels of support (NAVA level) during non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) on electrical diaphragm activity. This is a prospective, single-centre, interventional, exploratory study in a convenience sample. Clinically stable preterm infants supported with NIV-NAVA for RDS were eligible. Patients were recruited in the first 24 h after the start of NIV-NAVA. Following a predefined titration protocol, NAVA levels were progressively increased starting from a level of 0.5 cmH2O/µV and with increments of 0.5 cmH2O/µV every 3 min, up to a maximum level of 4.0 cmH2O/µV. We measured the evolution of peak inspiratory pressure and the electrical signal of the diaphragm (Edi) during NAVA level titration. Twelve infants with a mean (SD) gestational age at birth of 30.6 (3.5) weeks and birth weight of 1454 (667) g were enrolled. For all patients a breakpoint could be identified during the titration study. The breakpoint was on average (SD) at a level of 2.33 (0.58) cmH2O/µV. With increasing NAVA levels, the respiratory rate decreased significantly. No severe complications occurred.Conclusions: Preterm neonates with RDS supported with NIV-NAVA display a biphasic response to changing NAVA levels with an identifiable breakpoint. This breakpoint was at a higher NAVA level than commonly used in this clinical situation. Immature neural feedback mechanisms warrant careful monitoring of preterm infants when supported with NIV-NAVA.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03780842. Date of registration December 12, 2018. What is Known:• Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) is a safe, feasible and effective way to support respiration in preterm infants.• Intact neural feedback mechanisms are needed to protect the lung from overdistension in neurally adjusted ventilatory assist.What is New:• Preterm infants with acute RDS have a similar pattern of respiratory unloading as previously described.• Neural feedback mechanisms seem to be immature with the risk of insufficient support and lung injury due to overdistension of the lung.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00431-021-04244-3.

Implementation of noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in pediatric acute respiratory failure: a controlled before-after quality improvement study

BackgroundsPediatric noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) has been shown to improve patient-ventilator interaction but no data on clinical outcomes are available. Aim of this study was to compare NIV-NAVA with noninvasive pressure support (NIV-PS) in children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), in a single-center before-after study. A cohort of thirty-four NIV-PS patients (before group) admitted to our PICU within the 2 years prior NAVA introduction was compared with a cohort of thirty children treated with NIV-NAVA during implementation phase (after group). The primary end-point was intubation rate between groups. Days on mechanical ventilation, number of invasive devices, nosocomial infections, PICU/hospital length of stay (LOS), and physiological parameters at 2 and 24 h after admission were considered.ResultsIntubation rate was lower in the NIV-NAVA group as compared to the NIV-PS group (p = 0.006). Patients treated with NIV-NAVA required fewer invasive devices (p = 0.032) and had lower incidence of ventilator-acquired pneumonia (p = 0.004) and shorter PICU (p = 0.032) and hospital LOS (p = 0.013). At 2 h, NIV-NAVA compared with NIV-PS resulted in higher paO2:FIO2 (p = 0.017), lower paCO2 (p = 0.002), RR (p = 0.026), and HR (p = 0.009).ConclusionsEarly NIV-NAVA vs NIV-PS was associated to lower intubation rate and shorter PICU and hospital LOS. Further studies are needed in order to confirm these preliminary data.

Cardiorespiratory effects of NIV-NAVA, NIPPV, and NCPAP shortly after extubation in extremely preterm infants: A randomized crossover trial.

Investigate the cardiorespiratory effects of noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA), nonsynchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) shortly after extubation. Types of noninvasive pressure support and the presence of synchronization may affect cardiorespiratory parameters. Randomized crossover trial. Infants with birth weight (BW) 1250 g or under, undergoing their first planned extubation were randomly assigned to all three modes using a computer-generated sequence. Electrocardiogram and electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi) were recorded for 30 min on each mode. Analysis of heart rate variability (HRV), diaphragmatic activity (Edi area, breath area, amplitude, inspiratory and expiratory times), and respiratory variability were compared between modes. Twenty-three infants had full data recordings and analysis: Median (IQR) gestational age = 25.9 weeks (25.2-26.4), BW = 760 g (595-900), and postnatal age 7 (4-19) days. There were no differences in HRV between modes. A significantly reduced Edi area and breath amplitude, and increased coefficient of variation (CV) of breath amplitude were observed during NIV-NAVA and NIPPV compared to NCPAP. A higher proportion of assisted breaths (99% vs. 51%; p < .001) provided a higher mean airway pressure (MAP; 9.4 vs. 8.2 cmH2 O; p = .002) with lower peak inflation pressures (PIPs; 14 vs. 16 cmH2 O; p < .001) during NIV-NAVA compared to NIPPV. NIV-NAVA and NIPPV applied shortly after extubation were associated with lower respiratory efforts and higher respiratory variability. These effects were more evident for NIV-NAVA where optimal patient-ventilator synchronization provided a higher MAP with lower PIPs.

Effects of heliox and non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) in preterm infants

Due to its unique properties, helium–oxygen (heliox) mixtures may provide benefits during non-invasive ventilation, however, knowledge regarding the effects of such therapy in premature infants is limited. This is the first report of heliox non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) ventilation applied in neonates born ≤ 32 weeks gestational age. After baseline NIV-NAVA ventilation with a standard mixture of air and oxygen, heliox was introduced for 3 h, followed by 3 h of air-oxygen. Heart rate, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation, cerebral oxygenation, electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi) and selected ventilatory parameters (e.g., respiratory rate, peak inspiratory pressure) were continuously monitored. We found that application of heliox NIV-NAVA in preterm infants was feasible and associated with a prompt and significant decrease of Edi suggesting reduced respiratory effort, while all other parameters were stable throughout the study, and had similar values during heliox and air-oxygen ventilation. This therapy may potentially enhance the efficacy of non-invasive respiratory support in preterm neonates and reduce the number of infants progressing to ventilatory failure.

Non-invasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) in the pediatric ICU: assessing optimal Edi compliance.

Bronchiolitis patients are supported with non-invasive conventional modalities (HFNC, CPAP and BiPAP). Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) is a newer mode which supports based on electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi). It is unclear if non-invasive NAVA is used within optimal operational parameters. The study aim was to evaluate Edi compliance. A retrospective chart review of bronchiolitis patients admitted to the PICU from January 2015 to January 2018 was undertaken. NAVA compliance within optimal parameters (defined as Edi peak values between 5-15 μV and Edi min < 1μV) was assessed as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included PICU length of stay (LOS), duration to minimal respiratory support (defined as 4 L/min or less on HFNC) and intubation rate in the conventional (non-NAVA) and non-invasive NAVA. Sixty-three patients with a mean age of 6.89 months with 30 on NAVA and 33 on non-NAVA support were analyzed. Compliance with optimal Edi peak and Edi min was 50.4% (±37.5%) and 33.8% (±26.2%) respectively. Regression models for PICU LOS with minimal respiratory support and for 1L/kg of HFNC showed adjusted R2= 0.96 and 0.92, respectively. The mean PICU stay for NAVA was 146.00 hrs. (±66.26) versus 69.58 hrs. (±57.69) for the non-NAVA group (p<0.001). Duration to minimal respiratory support was 125.40 hrs. (±54.90) for NAVA versus 58.03 hrs. (±58.97) for non-NAVA group (p<0.001). A higher intubation rate was found in the NAVA group (13.33% versus 3.03%, p=0.296). We found suboptimal compliance with operational parameters with non-invasive NAVA support. There was longer PICU LOS, time to minimal respiratory support in the NAVA compared to the non-NAVA support.

Backup ventilation during neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in preterm infants.

To analyze the proportion of backup ventilation during neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) in preterm infants at different postmenstrual ages (PMAs) and to analyze the trends in backup ventilation in relation to clinical deteriorations. A prospective observational study was conducted in 18 preterm infants born at a median (range) 27+4 (23+4 -34+4 ) weeks of gestation with a median (range) birth weight of 1,100 (460-2,820) g, who received respiratory support with either invasive or noninvasive NAVA. Data on ventilator settings and respiratory variables were collected daily; the mean values of each 24-h recording were computed for each respiratory variable. For clinical deterioration, ventilator data were reviewed at 6-h intervals for 30 h before the event. A total of 354 patient days were included: 269 and 85 days during invasive and noninvasive NAVA, respectively. The time on backup ventilation (%/min) significantly decreased with increasing PMA during both invasive and noninvasive NAVA. The neural respiratory rate did not change over time. The median time on backup ventilation was less than 15%/min, and the median neural respiratory rate was more than 45 breaths/min for infants above 26+0 weeks PMA during invasive NAVA. The relative backup ventilation significantly increased before the episode of clinical deterioration. The proportion of backup ventilation during NAVA showed how the control of breathing matured with increasing PMA. Even the most immature infants triggered most of their breaths by their own respiratory effort. An acute increase in the proportion of backup ventilation anticipated clinical deterioration.

Parent-infant skin-to-skin contact reduces the electrical activity of the diaphragm and stabilizes respiratory function in preterm infants.

BackgroundThe physiological benefit of parent–infant skin-to-skin contact (SSC) is uncertain for preterm infants with ventilatory support. We aimed to investigate whether SSC stabilizes the respiration compared to incubator care in mechanically ventilated preterm infants.MethodsThe prospective observational study was performed in Turku University Hospital, Finland. Preterm infants were eligible if they were born before 36 weeks gestation and received respiratory support with either invasive or non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA). SSC was applied as soon as possible after birth. Respiratory variables were collected from the ventilator log data, and SSC episodes were compared with matched control periods during incubator care.ResultsA total of 167 episodes of SSC were recorded from 17 preterm infants: 138 episodes during invasive NAVA and 29 episodes during non-invasive NAVA. During invasive NAVA, peak electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi), minimum Edi, respiratory rate, time on backup ventilation, peak inspiratory pressure, and mean airway pressure were significantly lower in SSC than in incubator care. During non-invasive NAVA, peak Edi, minimum Edi, time on backup ventilation, and peak inspiratory pressure were significantly lower in SSC than in incubator care.ConclusionsSSC stabilized and improved the respiratory physiology in mechanically ventilated preterm infants.Impact Skin-to-skin contact reduced work of breathing compared to incubator care in mechanically ventilated preterm infants.Skin-to-skin contact reduced the need for backup ventilation during neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in preterm infants.Skin-to-skin contact among ventilated preterm infants was not only safe but also stabilized and improved their respiratory physiology.

Evaluating peak inspiratory pressures and tidal volume in premature neonates on NAVA ventilation.

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) ventilation allows patients to determine their peak inspiratory pressure and tidal volume on a breath-by-breath basis. Apprehension exists about premature neonates’ ability to self-regulate breath size. This study describes peak pressure and tidal volume distribution of neonates on NAVA and non-invasive NAVA. This is a retrospective study of stored ventilator data with exploratory analysis. Summary statistics were calculated. Distributional assessment of peak pressure and tidal volume were evaluated, overall and per NAVA level. Over 1 million breaths were evaluated from 56 subjects. Mean peak pressure was 16.4 ± 6.4 in the NAVA group, and 15.8 ± 6.4 in the NIV-NAVA group (t test, p < 0.001). Mean tidal volume was 3.5 ± 2.7 ml/kg.Conclusion:In neonates on NAVA, most pressures and volumes were within or lower than recommended ranges with pressure-limited or volume-guarantee ventilation.What is known:• Limiting peak inspiratory pressures or tidal volumes are the main strategies to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury in neonates. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist allows neonates to regulate their own peak inspiratory pressures and tidal volumes on a breath-to-breath basis using neural feedback.What is new:• When neonates chose the size of their breaths based on neural feedback, the majority of peak inspiratory pressures and tidal volumes were within or lower than the recommended peak inspiratory pressure or tidal volume ranges with pressure-limited or volume guarantee ventilation.

Noninvasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilator Assist Ventilation in the Postoperative Period Produces Better Patient-Ventilator Synchrony but Not Comfort.

Background Noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has been shown to improve patient-ventilator interaction in many settings. There is still scarce data with regard to postoperative patients indicated for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) which this study elates. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate postoperative patients for synchrony and comfort in noninvasive pressure support ventilation (NIV-PSV) vs. NIV-NAVA. Methods Twenty-two subjects received either NIV-NAVA or NIV-PSV in an object-blind, prospective, randomized, crossover fashion (observational trial). We evaluated blood gases and ventilator tracings throughout as well as comfort of ventilation at the end of each ventilation phase. Results There was an effective reduction in ventilator delays (p < 0.001) and negative pressure duration in NIV-NAVA as compared to NIV-PSV (p < 0.001). Although we used optimized settings in NIV-PSV, explaining the overall low incidence of asynchrony, NIV-NAVA led to reductions in the NeuroSync-index (p < 0.001) and all types of asynchrony except for double triggering that was significantly more frequent in NIV-NAVA vs. NIV-PSV (p = 0.02); ineffective efforts were reduced to zero by use of NIV-NAVA. In our population of previously lung-healthy subjects, we did not find differences in blood gases and patient comfort between the two modes. Conclusion In the postoperative setting, NIV-NAVA is well suitable for use and effective in reducing asynchronies as well as a surrogate for work of breathing. Although increased synchrony was not transferred into an increased comfort, there was an advantage with regard to patient-ventilator interaction. The trial was registered at the German clinical Trials Register (DRKS no.: DRKS00005408).

Diaphragm-triggered non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants.

Diaphragm-triggered non-invasive respiratory support, commonly referred to as NIV-NAVA (non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist), uses the electrical activity of the crural diaphragm to trigger the start and end of a breath. It provides variable inspiratory pressure that is proportional to an infant's changing inspiratory effort. NIV-NAVA has the potential to provide effective, non-invasive, synchronised, multilevel support and may reduce the need for invasive ventilation; however, its effects on short- and long-term outcomes, especially in the preterm infant, are unclear. To assess the effectiveness and safety of diaphragm-triggered non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestation) when compared to other non-invasive modes of respiratory support (nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV); nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP); high-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC)), and to assess preterm infants with birth weight less than 1000 grams or less than 28 weeks' corrected gestation at the time of intervention as a sub-group. We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2019, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1946 to 10 May 2019), Embase (1947 to 10 May 2019), and CINAHL (1982 to 10 May 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared diaphragm-triggered non-invasive versus other non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants. Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data from included studies. We performed fixed-effect analyses and expressed treatment effects as mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the generic inverse variance method to analyse specific outcomes for cross-over trials. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. There were two small randomised controlled trials including a total of 23 infants eligible for inclusion in the review. Only one trial involving 16 infants included in the analysis reported on either of the primary outcomes of the review. This found no difference in failure of modality between NIV-NAVA and NIPPV (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.14; RD -0.13, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.16; 1 study, 16 infants; heterogeneity not applicable). Both trials reported on secondary outcomes of the review, specific for cross-over trials (total 22 infants; 1 excluded due to failure of initial modality). One study involving seven infants reported a significant reduction in maximum FiO₂ with NIV-NAVA compared to NIPPV (MD -4.29, 95% CI -5.47 to -3.11; heterogeneity not applicable). There was no difference in maximum electric activity of the diaphragm (Edi) signal between modalities (MD -1.75, 95% CI -3.75 to 0.26; I² = 0%) and a significant increase in respiratory rate with NIV-NAVA compared to NIPPV (MD 7.22, 95% CI 0.21 to 14.22; I² = 72%) on a meta-analysis of two studies involving a total of 22 infants. The included studies did not report on other outcomes of interest. Due to limited data and very low certainty evidence, we were unable to determine if diaphragm-triggered non-invasive respiratory support is effective or safe in preventing respiratory failure in preterm infants. Large, adequately powered randomised controlled trials are needed to determine if diaphragm-triggered non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants is effective or safe.

Comparison of extubation success using noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) versus noninvasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NI-NAVA).

ObjectiveCompare rates of initial extubation success in preterm infants extubated to NIPPV or NI-NAVA.Study designIn this pilot study, we randomized 30 mechanically ventilated preterm infants at the time of initial elective extubation to NI-NAVA or NIPPV in a 1:1 assignment. Primary study outcome was initial extubation success.ResultsRates of continuous extubation for 120 h were 92% in the NI-NAVA group and 69% in the NIPPV group (12/13 vs. 9/13, respectively, p = 0.14). Infants extubated to NI-NAVA remained extubated longer (median 18 vs. 4 days, p = 0.02) and experienced lower peak inspiratory pressures (PIP) than infants managed with NIPPV throughout the first 3 days after extubation. Survival analysis through 14 days post extubation showed a sustained difference in the primary study outcome until 12 days post extubation.ConclusionsOur study is the first to suggest that a strategy of extubating preterm infants to NI-NAVA may be more successful.