New setting of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist for noninvasive ventilation by facial mask: A physiologic study

Background: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is generally delivered using pneumatically-triggered and cycled-off pressure support (PS_P) through a mask. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) is the only ventilatory mode that uses a non-pneumatic signal, i.e., diaphragm electrical activity (EAdi), to trigger and drive ventilator assistance. A specific setting to generate neurally controlled pressure support (PS_N) was recently proposed for delivering NIV by helmet. We compared PS_N with PS_P and NAVA during NIV using a facial mask, with respect to patient comfort, gas exchange, and patient-ventilator interaction and synchrony. Methods: Three 30-minute trials of NIV were randomly delivered to 14 patients immediately after extubation to prevent post-extubation respiratory failure: (1) PS_P, with an inspiratory support ≥8 cmH₂O; (2) NAVA, adjusting the NAVA level to achieve a comparable peak EAdi (EAdi_peak) as during PS_P; and (3) PS_N, setting the NAVA level at 15 cmH₂O/μV with an upper airway pressure (Paw) limit to obtain the same overall Paw applied during PS_P. We assessed patient comfort, peak inspiratory flow (PIF), time to reach PIF (PIF_time), EAdi_peak, arterial blood gases, pressure-time product of the first 300 ms (PTP_300-index) and 500 ms (PTP_500-index) after initiation of patient effort, inspiratory trigger delay (Delay_TR-insp), and rate of asynchrony, determined as asynchrony index (AI%). The categorical variables were compared using the McNemar test, and continuous variables by the Friedman test followed by the Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (p < 0.017). Results: PS_N significantly improved patient comfort, compared to both PS_P (p = 0.001) and NAVA (p = 0.002), without differences between the two latter (p = 0.08). PIF (p = 0.109), EAdi_peak (p = 0.931) and gas exchange were similar between modes. Compared to PS_P and NAVA, PS_N reduced PIF_time (p < 0.001), and increased PTP_300-index (p = 0.004) and PTP_500-index (p = 0.001). NAVA and PS_N significantly reduced Delay_TR-insp, as opposed to PS_P (p < 0.001). During both NAVA and PS_N, AI% was <10% in all patients, while AI% was ≥10% in 7 patients (50%) with PS_P (p = 0.023 compared with both NAVA and PS_N). Conclusions: Compared to both PS_P and NAVA, PS_N improved comfort and patient-ventilator interaction during NIV by facial mask. PS_N also improved synchrony, as opposed to PS_P only. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03041402. Registered (retrospectively) on 2 February 2017.