Data_Sheet_1_Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist vs. Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in Adults and Children With Acute Respiratory Failure: A Sys.docx (191.88 kB)

Data_Sheet_1_Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist vs. Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in Adults and Children With Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.docx

Download (191.88 kB)
dataset
posted on 22.02.2022, 04:02 by Mengfan Wu, Xueyan Yuan, Ling Liu, Yi Yang
Background

Patient-ventilator asynchrony is a common problem in mechanical ventilation (MV), resulting in increased complications of MV. Despite there being some pieces of evidence for the efficacy of improving the synchronization of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA), controversy over its physiological and clinical outcomes remain. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relative impact of NAVA or conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) modes on the important outcomes of adults and children with acute respiratory failure (ARF).

Methods

Qualified studies were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and additional quality evaluations up to October 5, 2021. The primary outcome was asynchrony index (AI); secondary outcomes contained the duration of MV, intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, the incidence rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia, pH, and Partial Pressure of Carbon Dioxide in Arterial Blood (PaCO2). A statistical heterogeneity for the outcomes was assessed using the I2 test. A data analysis of outcomes using odds ratio (OR) for ICU mortality and ventilator-associated pneumonia incidence and mean difference (MD) for AI, duration of MV, pH, and PaCO2, with 95% confidence interval (CI), was expressed.

Results

Eighteen eligible studies (n = 926 patients) were eventually enrolled. For the primary outcome, NAVA may reduce the AI (MD = −18.31; 95% CI, −24.38 to −12.25; p < 0.001). For the secondary outcomes, the duration of MV in the NAVA mode was 2.64 days lower than other CMVs (MD = −2.64; 95% CI, −4.88 to −0.41; P = 0.02), and NAVA may decrease the ICU mortality (OR =0.60; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.86; P = 0.006). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, pH, and PaCO2 between NAVA and other MV modes.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that NAVA ameliorates the synchronization of patient-ventilator and improves the important clinical outcomes of patients with ARF compared with CMV modes.

History

References