Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) is a ventilator mode providing improved patient–ventilator synchrony compared to flow- or pressure-triggering. We examined the effect of various NAVA, pressure support (PSV), and PEEP combinations in infants with acute viral bronchiolitis.
Methods:
This was a mechanistic study, nested within a randomized controlled feasibility trial. A set of 16 ventilatory combinations (each of 10–15 min), including PEEP of 1, 5, and 10 cm H2O; PSV of 20 cm H2O; and NAVA support ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 cm H2O/μV, were administered on each of 2 consecutive days to 13 invasively ventilated infants: mean (range) age 4 months (0.1–10.0). Outcome measures were grouped according to respiratory drive, respiratory efficiency, expiratory air flow limitation, gas exchange, and tolerability.
Results:
Higher PEEP levels were associated with better respiratory drive (P < .001 for electrical activity of the diaphragm and P0.1), respiratory efficiency (higher tidal volumes and lower breathing frequency, both P < .001) and improved oxygenation (P = .02). Minute ventilation remained constant (P = .67), as did transcutaneous CO2 (P = .60). Expiratory air flow limitation was minimal overall; however, it was reduced on NAVA compared with PSV (P < .001 for β angle). A NAVA support of 0.5 cm H2O/μV appeared inadequate for some outcome measures; conversely, the benefit of increasing support beyond 1.0 was modest, and not always apparent across all outcome measures. Altering PEEP did not produce clinically adverse effects on hemodynamics or patient tolerability (COMFORT-B score).
Conclusions:
Higher PEEP values of up to 10 cm H2O may improve respiratory mechanics in acute viral bronchiolitis, without adversely impacting on clinical state. We could not identify an optimal level of NAVA support; however, 0.5 cm H2O/μV may be inadequate.
LinssenRS, TeirlinckAC, van BovenM, et al.Increasing burden of viral bronchiolitis in the pediatric intensive care unit; an observational study. J Crit Care, 2022; 68:165–168; doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.07.009
2.
MahantS, ParkinP, ThavamT, et al.; Canadian Paediatric Inpatient Research Network (PIRN). Rates in bronchiolitis hospitalization, intensive care unit use, mortality, and costs from 2004 to 2018. JAMA Pediatr, 2022; 176(3):270–279; doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.5177
3.
GhazalyM, NadelS. Characteristics of children admitted to intensive care with acute bronchiolitis. Eur J Pediatr, 2018; 177(6):913–920; doi: 10.1007/s00431-018-3138-6
4.
KneyberMCJ, de LucaD, CalderiniE, et al.; section Respiratory Failure of the European Society for Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care. Recommendations for mechanical ventilation of critically ill children from the Paediatric Mechanical Ventilation Consensus Conference (PEMVECC). Intensive Care Med, 2017; 43(12):1764–1780; doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4920-z
5.
ZurcaAD, González-DambrauskasS, ColletiJ, et al.Intensivists’ reported management of critical bronchiolitis: More data and new guidelines needed. Hosp Pediatr, 2023; 13(8):660–670; doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2023-007120
6.
AliS, PlintAC, KlassenTP. Bronchiolitis. WilmottRW, BushA, BoatTF, DeterdingRR, RatjenF, ChernickV., Kendig & Chernick’s Disorders of the Respiratory Tract in Children. 8th edition. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2012; 443–452. In:. (eds).
TibbySM, HatherillM, WrightSM, et al.Exogenous surfactant supplementation in infants with respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2000; 162(4 Pt 1):1251–1256; doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.162.4.9909004
9.
AndreolioC, PivaJP, BrunoF, et al.Airway resistance and respiratory compliance in children with acute viral bronchiolitis requiring mechanical ventilation support. Indian J Crit Care Med, 2021; 25(1):88–93; doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23594
10.
GrahamAS, ChandrashekharaiahG, CitakA, et al.Positive end-expiratory pressure and pressure support in peripheral airways obstruction. Work of breathing in intubated children. Intensive Care Med, 2007; 33(1):120–127; doi: 10.1007/s00134-006-0445-6
11.
PiquilloudL, VignauxL, BialaisE, et al.Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist improves patient-ventilator interaction. Intensive Care Med, 2011; 37(2):263–271; doi: 10.1007/s00134-010-2052-9
12.
NavaS, BruschiC, FracchiaC, et al.Patient–ventilator interaction and inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation in patients with different pathologies. Eur Respir J, 1997; 10(1):177–183; doi: 10.1183/09031936.97.10010177
13.
HarrisJ, CrulliB, LatourJM, et al.Effect of morphine on respiratory drive in infants with acute viral bronchiolitis receiving Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist. Respir Care, 2026; 71(2):139–148; doi: 10.1177/19433654251377666
TeliasI, DamianiF, BrochardL. The airway occlusion Pressure (P0.1) to monitor respiratory drive during mechanical ventilation: increasing awareness of a not-so-new problem. Intensive Care Med, 2018; 44(9):1532–1535; doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5045-8
18.
KatayamaS, TonaiK, NunomiyaS. Bias and precision of continuous P0.1measurement by various ventilators: A simulation study. Respir Care, 2023; 68(10):1393–1399; doi: 10.4187/respcare.10755
19.
RozéH, RepusseauB, PerrierV, et al.Neuro-ventilatory efficiency during weaning from mechanical ventilation using neurally adjusted ventilatory assist. Br J Anaesth, 2013; 111(6):955–960; doi: 10.1093/bja/aet258
20.
Campoccia JaldeF, JaldeF, WallinMKEB, et al.Standardized unloading of respiratory muscles during neurally adjusted ventilatory assist: A randomized crossover pilot study. Anesthesiology, 2018; 129(4):769–777; doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002335
21.
ZhengCJ, AdamsAB, McGrailMP, et al.A proposed curvilinearity index for quantifying airflow obstruction. Respir Care, 2006; 51(1):40–45; doi: 16381616
22.
KappMC, SchachterEN, BeckGJ, et al.The shape of the maximum expiratory flow volume curve. Chest, 1988; 94(4):799–806; doi: 10.1378/chest.94.4.799
23.
ZhangY, XiongX, DaiF, et al.Curvilinearity of a maximum expiratory flow-volume curve: A useful indicator for assessing airway obstruction in children with asthma. Respir Care, 2020; 65(4):427–436; doi: 10.4187/respcare.07142
24.
van DijkM, PetersJW, van DeventerP, et al.The COMFORT behavior scale: A tool for assessing pain and sedation in infants. Am J Nurs, 2005; 105(1):33–36; doi: 10.1097/00000446-200501000-00019
25.
MonsalvesMJ, BangdiwalaAS, ThabaneA, et al.LEVEL (Logical Explanations & Visualizations of Estimates in Linear mixed models): Recommendations for reporting multilevel data and analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2020; 20(1):3; doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0876-8
26.
EmeriaudG, López-FernándezYM, IyerNP, et al.; Second Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference (PALICC-2) Group on behalf of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) Network. Executive summary of the second international guidelines for the diagnosis and management of Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (PALICC-2). Pediatr Crit Care Med, 2023; 24(2):143–168; doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000003147
27.
KallioM, PeltoniemiO, AnttilaE, et al.Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) in pediatric intensive care – A randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Pulmonol, 2015; 50(1):55–62; doi: 10.1002/ppul.22995
28.
PassathC, TakalaJ, TuchschererD, et al.Physiologic response to changing positive end-expiratory pressure during neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in sedated, critically ill adults. Chest, 2010; 138(3):578–587; doi: 10.1378/chest.10-0286
29.
ClementKC, ThurmanTL, HoltSJ, et al.Neurally triggered breaths reduce trigger delay and improve ventilator response times in ventilated infants with bronchiolitis. Intensive Care Med, 2011; 37(11):1826–1832; doi: 10.1007/s00134-011-2352-8
30.
PiastraM, De LucaD, CostaR, et al.Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist vs pressure support ventilation in infants recovering from severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: Nested study. J Crit Care, 2014; 29(2):312.e1–312.e5; doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2013.08.006
31.
DuyndamA, BolBSP, KroonA, et al.Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist: Assessing the comfort and feasibility of use in neonates and children. Nurs Crit Care, 2013; 18(2):86–92; doi: 10.1111/j.1478-5153.2012.00541.x
32.
de la OlivaP, SchüffelmannC, Gómez-ZamoraA, et al.Asynchrony, neural drive, ventilatory variability and COMFORT: NAVA versus pressure support in pediatric patients. A non-randomized cross-over trial. Intensive Care Med, 2012; 38(5):838–846; doi: 10.1007/s00134-012-2535-y
33.
KallioM, PeltoniemiO, AnttilaE, et al.Electrical activity of the diaphragm during neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in pediatric patients. Pediatr Pulmonol, 2015; 50(9):925–931; doi: 10.1002/ppul.23084
34.
LietJM, DejodeJM, JoramN, et al.Respiratory support by Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) in severe RSV-related bronchiolitis: a case series report. BMC Pediatr, 2011; 11:92; doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-11-92
35.
BeckJ, CampocciaF, AlloJC, et al.Improved synchrony and respiratory unloading by Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) in lung-injured rabbits. Pediatr Res, 2007; 61(3):289–294; doi: 10.1203/01.pdr.0000257324.22406.93
36.
BarwingJ, LindenN, AmboldM, et al.Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist vs. pressure support ventilation in critically ill patients: An observational study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand, 2011; 55(10):1261–1271; doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02522.x
YounesM, KunJ, WebsterK, et al.Response of ventilator-dependent patients to delayed opening of exhalation valve. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2002; 166(1):21–30; doi: 10.1164/rccm.2107143
39.
SassoonCS, ZhuE, CaiozzoVJ. Assist-control mechanical ventilation attenuates ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2004; 170(6):626–632; doi: 10.1164/rccm.200401-042OC
40.
Diniz-SilvaF, MoriyaHT, AlencarAM, et al.Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist vs. pressure support to deliver protective mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized crossover trial. Ann Intensive Care, 2020; 10(1):18; doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-0638-0
41.
BordessouleA, EmeriaudG, MorneauS, et al.Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist improves patient-ventilator interaction in infants as compared with conventional ventilation. Pediatr Res, 2012; 72(2):194–202; doi: 10.1038/pr.2012.64
42.
Peterson-CarmichaelS, SeddonPC, CheifetzIM, et al.; ATS/ERS Working Group on Infant and Young Children Pulmonary Function Testing. An official American Thoracic Society/European respiratory society workshop report: evaluation of respiratory mechanics and function in the pediatric and neonatal intensive care units. Ann Am Thorac Soc, 2016; 13(2):S1–S11; doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201511-730ST
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
