Compared to PSV, NAVA averted the risk of over-assistance, avoided patient-ventilator asynchrony, and improved patient-ventilator interaction.

The ability of intensive care unit physicians to recognize patient-ventilator asynchronies was overall quite low and decreased at higher prevalence; expertise significantly increased sensitivity for breath-by-breath analysis, whereas it only produced a trend toward improvement for report analysis.

In pressure support ventilation, deep propofol sedation increased asynchronies, while light sedation did not. Propofol reduced the respiratory drive, while breathing timing was not significantly affected. Gas exchange and breathing pattern were also influenced by propofol infusion to an extent that varied with the depth of sedation and the mode of ventilation.

In a highly experienced centre NIV may be used to facilitate discontinuation of mechanical ventilation in selected patients with resolving hypoxemic ARF.

Purpose: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may facilitate withdrawal of invasive mechanical ventilation (i-MV) and shorten intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) in hypercapnic patients, while data are lacking on hypoxemic patients. We aim to determine whether NIV after early extubation reduces the duration of i-MV and ICU LOS in patients recovering from hypoxemic acute respiratory failure. Methods: Highly selected non-hypercapnic hypoxemic patients were randomly assigned to receive NIV after early or standard extubation. Co-primary end points were duration of i-MV and ICU LOS. Secondary end points were treatment failure, severe events (hemorrhagic, septic, cardiac, renal or neurologic episodes, pneumothorax or pulmonary embolism), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) or tracheobronchitis (VAT), tracheotomy, percent of patients receiving sedation after study enrollment, hospital LOS, and ICU and hospital mortality. Results: We enrolled 130 consecutive patients, 65 treatments and 65 controls. Duration of i-MV was shorter in the treatment group than for controls [4.0 (3.0-7.0) vs. 5.5 (4.0-9.0) days, respectively, p = 0.004], while ICU LOS was not significantly different [8.0 (6.0-12.0) vs. 9.0 (6.5-12.5) days, respectively (p = 0.259)]. Incidence of VAT or VAP (9% vs. 25%, p = 0.019), rate of patients requiring infusion of sedatives after enrollment (57% vs. 85%, p = 0.001), and hospital LOS, 20 (13-32) vs. 27(18-39) days (p = 0.043) were all significantly reduced in the treatment group compared with controls. There were no significant differences in ICU and hospital mortality or in the number of treatment failures, severe events, and tracheostomies. Conclusions: In highly selected hypoxemic patients, early extubation followed by immediate NIV application reduced the days spent on invasive ventilation without affecting ICU LOS.

AimWe aim at characterising a large population of Coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving CPAP outside intensive care unit (ICU), and ascertaining whether the duration of CPAP application increased the risk of mortality for patients requiring intubation.MethodsIn this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included COVID-19 adult patients, treated with CPAP outside ICU for hypoxemic ARF from March 1st to April 15th, 2020. We collected demographic and clinical data, including CPAP therapeutic goal, hospital length of stay (LOS), and 60-day in-hospital mortality.ResultsThe study includes 537 patients with a median age of 69 (IQR, 60–76) years. Males were 391 (73%). According to predefined CPAP therapeutic goal, 397 (74%) patients were included in full treatment subgroup, and 140 (26%) in the do-not intubate (DNI) subgroup. Median CPAP duration was 4 (IQR, 1–8) days, while hospital LOS 16 (IQR, 9–27) days. Sixty-day in-hospital mortality was overall 34% (95%CI, 0.304–0.384), and 21% (95%CI, 0.169–0.249) and 73% (95%CI, 0.648–0.787) for full treatment and DNI subgroups, respectively. In the full treatment subgroup, in-hospital mortality was 42% (95%CI, 0.345–0.488) for 180 (45%) CPAP failures requiring intubation, while 2% (95%CI, 0.008–0.035) for the remaining 217 (55%) patients who succeeded. Delaying intubation was associated with increased mortality [HR, 1.093 (95%CI, 1.010–1.184)].ConclusionsWe described a large population of COVID-19 patients treated with CPAP outside ICU. Intubation delay represents a risk factor for mortality. Further investigation is needed for early identification of CPAP failures.

Background Compared to pneumatically controlled pressure support (PSP), neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) was proved to improve patient–ventilator interactions, while not affecting comfort, diaphragm electrical activity (EAdi), and arterial blood gases (ABGs). This study compares neurally controlled pressure support (PSN) with PSP and NAVA, delivered through two different helmets, in hypoxemic patients receiving noninvasive ventilation for prevention of extubation failure. Methods Fifteen patients underwent three (PSP, NAVA, and PSN) 30-min trials in random order with both helmets. Positive end-expiratory pressure was always set at 10 cm H2O. In PSP, the inspiratory support was set at 10 cm H2O above positive end-expiratory pressure. NAVA was adjusted to match peak EAdi (EAdipeak) during PSP. In PSN, the NAVA level was set at maximum matching the pressure delivered during PSP by limiting the upper pressure. The authors assessed patient comfort, EAdipeak, rates of pressurization (i.e., airway pressure-time product [PTP] of the first 300 and 500 ms after the initiation of patient effort, indexed to the ideal pressure–time products), and measured ABGs. Results PSN significantly increased comfort to (median [25 to 75% interquartile range]) 8 [7 to 8] and 9 [8 to 9] with standard and new helmets, respectively, as opposed to both PSP (5 [5 to 6] and 7 [6 to 7]) and NAVA (6 [5 to 7] and 7 [6 to 8]; P < 0.01 for all comparisons). Regardless of the interface, PSN also decreased EAdipeak (P < 0.01), while increasing PTP of the first 300 ms from the onset of patient effort, indexed to the ideal PTP (P < 0.01) and PTP of the first 500 ms from the onset of patient effort, indexed to the ideal PTP (P < 0.001). ABGs were not different among trials. Conclusions When delivering noninvasive ventilation by helmet, compared to PSP and NAVA, PSN improves comfort and patient–ventilator interactions, while not ABGs. (Anesthesiology 2016; 125:1181-9)

Compared with PSV, NAVA improves patient-ventilator interaction and synchrony, with no difference in gas exchange, respiratory rate, and neural drive and timing.