We hypothesized that neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) compared to conventional lung-protective mechanical ventilation (MV) decreases duration of MV and mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Methods: We carried out a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in patients with ARF from several etiologies. Intubated patients ventilated for ≤ 5 days expected to require MV for ≥ 72 h and able to breathe spontaneously were eligible for enrollment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned based on balanced treatment assignments with a computerized randomization allocation sequence to two ventilatory strategies: (1) lung-protective MV (control group), and (2) lung-protective MV with NAVA (NAVA group). Allocation concealment was maintained at all sites during the trial. Primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days. Secondary outcome was all-cause hospital mortality. All analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. Results: Between March 2014 and October 2019, we enrolled 306 patients and randomly assigned 153 patients to the NAVA group and 153 to the control group. Median VFDs were higher in the NAVA than in the control group (22 vs. 18 days; between-group difference 4 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 8 days; p = 0.016). At hospital discharge, 39 (25.5%) patients in the NAVA group and 47 (30.7%) patients in the control group had died (between-group difference − 5.2%, 95% CI − 15.2 to 4.8, p = 0.31). Other clinical, physiological or safety outcomes did not differ significantly between the trial groups. Conclusion: NAVA decreased duration of MV although it did not improve survival in ventilated patients with ARF.

Plateau pressure was slightly better than driving pressure in predicting hospital death in patients managed with lung-protective ventilation evaluated on standardized ventilator settings 24 hours after acute respiratory distress syndrome onset.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the epidemiological characteristics, ventilator management, and outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), with or without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), in the era of lung-protective mechanical ventilation (MV). DESIGN: A 6-month prospective, epidemiological, observational study. SETTING: A network of 22 multidisciplinary ICUs in Spain. PATIENTS: Consecutive mechanically ventilated patients with AHRF (defined as Pao2/Fio2 ≤ 300 mm Hg on positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] ≥ 5 cm H2O and Fio2 ≥ 0.3) and followed-up until hospital discharge. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes were prevalence of AHRF and ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included prevalence of ARDS, ventilatory management, and use of adjunctive therapies. During the study period, 9,803 patients were admitted: 4,456 (45.5%) received MV, 1,271 (13%) met AHRF criteria (1,241 were included into the study: 333 [26.8%] met Berlin ARDS criteria and 908 [73.2%] did not). At baseline, tidal volume was 6.9 ± 1.1 mL/kg predicted body weight, PEEP 8.4 ± 3.1 cm H2O, Fio2 0.63 ± 0.22, and plateau pressure 21.5 ± 5.4 cm H2O. ARDS patients received higher Fio2 and PEEP than non-ARDS (0.75 ± 0.22 vs 0.59 ± 0.20 cm H2O and 10.3 ± 3.4 vs 7.7 ± 2.6 cm H2O, respectively [p < 0.0001]). Adjunctive therapies were rarely used in non-ARDS patients. Patients without ARDS had higher ventilator-free days than ARDS (12.2 ± 11.6 vs 9.3 ± 9.7 d; p < 0.001). All-cause ICU mortality was similar in AHRF with or without ARDS (34.8% [95% CI, 29.7–40.2] vs 35.5% [95% CI, 32.3–38.7]; p = 0.837). CONCLUSIONS: AHRF without ARDS is a very common syndrome in the ICU with a high mortality that requires specific studies into its epidemiology and ventilatory management. We found that the prevalence of ARDS was much lower than reported in recent observational studies.

No abstract

Objectives: Incomplete or ambiguous evidence for identifying high-risk patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome for enrollment into randomized controlled trials has come at the cost of an unreasonable number of negative trials. We examined a set of selected variables early in acute respiratory distress syndrome to determine accurate prognostic predictors for selecting high-risk patients for randomized controlled trials. Design: A training and testing study using a secondary analysis of data from four prospective, multicenter, observational studies. Setting: A network of multidisciplinary ICUs. Patients: We studied 1,200 patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome managed with lung-protective ventilation. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: We evaluated different thresholds for patient’s age, Pao 2/Fio 2, plateau pressure, and number of extrapulmonary organ failures to predict ICU outcome at 24 hours of acute respiratory distress syndrome diagnosis. We generated 1,000 random scenarios as training (n = 900, 75% of population) and testing (n = 300, 25% of population) datasets and averaged the logistic coefficients for each scenario. Thresholds for age (< 50, 50–70, > 70 yr), Pao 2/Fio 2 (≤ 100, 101–150, > 150 mm Hg), plateau pressure (< 29, 29–30, > 30 cm H2O), and number of extrapulmonary organ failure (< 2, 2, > 2) stratified accurately acute respiratory distress syndrome patients into categories of risk. The model that included all four variables proved best to identify patients with the highest or lowest risk of death (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.84–0.88). Decision tree analyses confirmed the accuracy and robustness of this enrichment model. Conclusions: Combined thresholds for patient’s age, Pao 2/Fio 2, plateau pressure, and extrapulmonary organ failure provides prognostic enrichment accuracy for stratifying and selecting acute respiratory distress syndrome patients for randomized controlled trials.

BackgroundPatient-ventilator asynchrony is a common problem in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure. It is assumed that asynchronies worsen lung function and prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV). Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) is a novel approach to MV based on neural respiratory center output that is able to trigger, cycle, and regulate the ventilatory cycle. We hypothesized that the use of NAVA compared to conventional lung-protective MV will result in a reduction of the duration of MV. It is further hypothesized that NAVA compared to conventional lung-protective MV will result in a decrease in the length of ICU and hospital stay, and mortality.Methods/designThis is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in 306 mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure from several etiologies. Only patients ventilated for less than 5 days, and who are expected to require prolonged MV for an additional 72 h or more and are able to breathe spontaneously, will be considered for enrollment. Eligible patients will be randomly allocated to two ventilatory arms: (1) conventional lung-protective MV (n = 153) and conventional lung-protective MV with NAVA (n = 153). Primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days, defined as days alive and free from MV at day 28 after endotracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes are total length of MV, and ICU and hospital mortality.DiscussionThis is the first randomized clinical trial examining, on a multicenter scale, the beneficial effects of NAVA in reducing the dependency on MV of patients with acute respiratory failure.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov website (NCT01730794). Registered on 15 November 2012.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1625-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.