Review question: Is neurally adjusted ventilatory assist ventilation (NAVA) a more effective method of supporting the breathing of prematurely born infants than conventional ventilation methods?
Background: Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist involves using the electrical signal from the baby's main breathing muscles to inform the ventilator as to when the baby is trying to breathe, such that the ventilatory may support the baby's own efforts. Synchronising the efforts of the infant with the activity of the ventilator may reduce required pressures required, along with damage to the lungs. Using the baby's own breathing control mechanisms may also reduce fluctuations in carbon dioxide levels in the blood and variations in blood flow to the brain.
Study characteristics: During literature searches completed until March 2017, we found one randomised controlled study that met the inclusion criteria for this review.
Key results: We found one eligible study that was conducted to evaluate the use of NAVA in providing neonatal respiratory support. This study reported no significant differences in outcomes of interest between NAVA and patient-triggered time-cycled pressure-limited ventilation. Well-designed studies are needed to further evaluate the role of this potentially exciting technique in providing breathing support for the neonatal population.
Risks and benefits of NAVA compared to other forms of ventilation for neonates are uncertain. Well-designed trials are required to evaluate this new form of triggered ventilation.
Effective synchronisation of infant respiratory effort with mechanical ventilation may allow adequate gas exchange to occur at lower peak airway pressures, potentially reducing barotrauma and volutrauma and development of air leaks and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. During neurally adjusted ventilatory assist ventilation (NAVA), respiratory support is initiated upon detection of an electrical signal from the diaphragm muscle, and pressure is provided in proportion to and synchronous with electrical activity of the diaphragm (EADi). Compared to other modes of triggered ventilation, this may provide advantages in improving synchrony.
• To determine whether NAVA, when used as a primary or rescue mode of ventilation, results in reduced rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) or death among term and preterm newborn infants compared to other forms of triggered ventilation
• To assess the safety of NAVA by determining whether it leads to greater risk of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), periventricular leukomalacia, or air leaks when compared to other forms of triggered ventilation
• To determine whether benefits of NAVA differ by gestational age (term or preterm)
• To determine whether outcomes of cross-over trials performed during the first two weeks of life include peak pressure requirements, episodes of hypocarbia or hypercarbia, oxygenation index, and the work of breathing
We performed searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cohrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid SP (January 1966 to March 2017); Embase via Ovid SP (January 1980 to March 2017); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) via EBSCO host (1982 to March 2017); and the Web of Science (1985 to 2017). We searched abstracts from annual meetings of the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) (2000 to 2016); meetings of the European Society of Pediatric Research (published in Pediatric Research); and meetings of the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand (PSANZ) (2005 to 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases to March 2017.
We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials including cross-over trials comparing NAVA with other modes of triggered ventilation (assist control ventilation (ACV),synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation plus pressure support (SIMV ± PS), pressure support ventilation (PSV), or proportional assist ventilation (PAV)) used in neonates.
Primary outcomes of interest from randomised controlled trials were all-cause mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD; defined as oxygen requirement at 28 days), and a combined outcome of all-cause mortality or BPD. Secondary outcomes were duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of air leak, incidence of IVH or periventricular leukomalacia, and survival with an oxygen requirement at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age.
Outcomes of interest from cross-over trials were maximum fraction of inspired oxygen, mean peak inspiratory pressure, episodes of hypocarbia, and episodes of hypercarbia measured across the time period of each arm of the cross-over. We planned to assess work of breathing; oxygenation index, and thoraco-abdominal asynchrony at the end of the time period of each arm of the cross-over study.
We included one randomised controlled study comparing NAVA versus patient-triggered time-cycled pressure-limited ventilation. This study found no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation, nor in rates of BPD, pneumothorax, or IVH.