IntroductionThe objective was to compare the impact of three assistance levels of different modes of mechanical ventilation; neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA), proportional assist ventilation (PAV), and pressure support ventilation (PSV) on major features of patient-ventilator interaction.MethodsPSV, NAVA, and PAV were set to obtain a tidal volume (VT) of 6 to 8 ml/kg (PSV100, NAVA100, and PAV100) in 16 intubated patients. Assistance was further decreased by 50% (PSV50, NAVA50, and PAV50) and then increased by 50% (PSV150, NAVA150, and PAV150) with all modes. The three modes were randomly applied. Airway flow and pressure, electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi), and blood gases were measured. VT, peak EAdi, coefficient of variation of VT and EAdi, and the prevalence of the main patient-ventilator asynchronies were calculated.ResultsPAV and NAVA prevented the increase of VT with high levels of assistance (median 7.4 (interquartile range (IQR) 5.7 to 10.1) ml/kg and 7.4 (IQR, 5.9 to 10.5) ml/kg with PAV150 and NAVA150 versus 10.9 (IQR, 8.9 to 12.0) ml/kg with PSV150, P <0.05). EAdi was higher with PAV than with PSV at level100 and level150. The coefficient of variation of VT was higher with NAVA and PAV (19 (IQR, 14 to 31)% and 21 (IQR 16 to 29)% with NAVA100 and PAV100 versus 13 (IQR 11 to 18)% with PSV100, P <0.05). The prevalence of ineffective triggering was lower with PAV and NAVA than with PSV (P <0.05), but the prevalence of double triggering was higher with NAVA than with PAV and PSV (P <0.05).ConclusionsPAV and NAVA both prevent overdistention, improve neuromechanical coupling, restore the variability of the breathing pattern, and decrease patient-ventilator asynchrony in fairly similar ways compared with PSV. Further studies are needed to evaluate the possible clinical benefits of NAVA and PAV on clinical outcomes.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02056093. Registered 18 December 2013.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0763-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Patient–ventilator asynchrony is associated with a poorer outcome. The prevalence and severity of asynchrony during the early phase of weaning has never been specifically described. The authors’ first aim was to evaluate the prognosis impact and the factors associated with asynchrony. Their second aim was to compare the prevalence of asynchrony according to two methods of detection: a visual inspection of signals and a computerized method integrating electromyographic activity of the diaphragm. Methods This was an ancillary study of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing neurally adjusted ventilatory assist to pressure support ventilation. Asynchrony was quantified at 12, 24, 36, and 48 h after switching from controlled ventilation to a partial mode of ventilatory assistance according to the two methods. An asynchrony index greater than or equal to 10% defined severe asynchrony. Results A total of 103 patients ventilated for a median duration of 5 days (interquartile range, 3 to 9 days) were included. Whatever the method used for quantification, severe patient–ventilator asynchrony was not associated with an alteration of the outcome. No factor was associated with severe asynchrony. The prevalence of asynchrony was significantly lower when the quantification was based on flow and pressure than when it was based on the electromyographic activity of the diaphragm at 0.3 min–1 (interquartile range, 0.2 to 0.8 min–1) and 4.7 min–1 (interquartile range, 3.2 to 7.7 min–1; P &lt; 0.0001), respectively. Conclusions During the early phase of weaning in patients receiving a partial ventilatory mode, severe patient–ventilator asynchrony was not associated with adverse clinical outcome, although the prevalence of patient–ventilator asynchrony varies according to the definitions and methods used for detection.