Proportional assist ventilation versus pressure support ventilation for weaning from mechanical ventilation in adults: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Pressure support ventilation (PSV) is the prevalent weaning method. Proportional assist ventilation (PAV) is an assisted ventilation mode, which is recently being applied to wean the patients from mechanical ventilation. Whether PAV or PSV is superior for weaning remains unclear.Methods
Eligible randomized controlled trials published before April 2020 were retrieved from databases. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results
Seven articles, involving 634 patients, met the selection criteria. Compared to PSV, PAV was associated with a significantly higher rate of weaning success (fixed-effect RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.07-1.26; I2 = 0.0%; trial sequential analysis-adjusted CI 1.03-1.30), and the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed. Compared to PSV, PAV was associated with a lower proportion of patients requiring reintubation (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28-0.87; I2 = 0%), a shorter ICU length of stay (MD - 1.58 (days), 95% CI - 2.68 to - 0.47; I2 = 0%), and a shorter mechanical ventilation duration (MD - 40.26 (hours); 95% CI - 66.67 to - 13.84; I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference between PAV and PSV with regard to mortality (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.42-1.06; I2 = 0%) or weaning duration (MD - 0.01 (hours); 95% CI - 1.30-1.28; I2 = 0%).Conclusion
The results of the meta-analysis suggest that PAV is superior to PSV in terms of weaning success, and the statistical power is confirmed using trial sequential analysis.
SUBMITTER: Ou-Yang LJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7487443 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Proportional modes (proportional assist ventilation, PAV, and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist, NAVA) could improve patient-ventilator interaction and consequently may be efficient as a weaning mode. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine whether proportional modes improved patient-ventilator interaction and whether they had an impact on the weaning success and length of mechanical ventilation, in comparison with PSV. METHODS:We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through May 13, 2018. We included both parallel-group and crossover randomized studies that examined the efficacy of proportional modes in comparison with PSV in mechanically ventilated adults. The primary outcomes were (1) asynchrony index (AI), (2) weaning failure, and (3) duration of mechanical ventilation. RESULTS:We included 15 studies (four evaluated PAV, ten evaluated NAVA, and one evaluated both modes). Although the use of proportional modes was not associated with a reduction in AI (WMD -?1.43; 95% CI -?3.11 to 0.25; p?=?0.096; PAV-one study, and NAVA-seven studies), the use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in patients with AI?>?10% (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.04-0.58; p?=?0.006; PAV-two studies, and NAVA-five studies), compared with PSV. There was a significant heterogeneity among studies for AI, especially with NAVA. Compared with PSV, use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in weaning failure (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.26-0.75; p?=?0.003; PAV-three studies) and duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD -?1.78 days; 95% CI -?3.24 to -?0.32; p?=?0.017; PAV-three studies, and NAVA-two studies). Reduced duration of mechanical ventilation was found with PAV but not with NAVA. CONCLUSION:The use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in the incidence with AI?>?10%, weaning failure and duration of mechanical ventilation, compared with PSV. However, reduced weaning failure and duration of mechanical ventilation were found with only PAV. Due to a significant heterogeneity among studies and an insufficient number of studies, further investigation seems warranted to better understand the impact of proportional modes. Clinical trial registration PROSPERO registration number, CRD42017059791. Registered 20 March 2017.
| S-EPMC6288104 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIneffective triggering is frequent during pressure support ventilation (PSV) and may persist despite ventilator adjustment, leading to refractory asynchrony. We aimed to assess the effect of proportional assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors (PAV+) on the occurrence of refractory ineffective triggering.DesignObservational assessment followed by prospective cross-over physiological study.SettingAcademic medical ICU.PatientsIneffective triggering was detected during PSV by a twice-daily inspection of the ventilator's screen. The impact of pressure support level (PSL) adjustments on the occurrence of asynchrony was recorded. Patients experiencing refractory ineffective triggering, defined as persisting asynchrony at the lowest tolerated PSL, were included in the physiological study.InterventionsPhysiological study: Flow, airway, and esophageal pressures were continuously recorded during 10 min under PSV with the lowest tolerated PSL, and then under PAV+ with the gain adjusted to target a muscle pressure between 5 and 10 cmH2O.MeasurementsPrimary endpoint was the comparison of asynchrony index between PSV and PAV+ after PSL and gain adjustments.ResultsAmong 36 patients identified having ineffective triggering under PSV, 21 (58%) exhibited refractory ineffective triggering. The lowest tolerated PSL was higher in patients with refractory asynchrony as compared to patients with non-refractory ineffective triggering. Twelve out of the 21 patients with refractory ineffective triggering were included in the physiological study. The median lowest tolerated PSL was 17 cmH2O [12-18] with a PEEP of 7 cmH2O [5-8] and FiO2 of 40% [39-42]. The median gain during PAV+ was 73% [65-80]. The asynchrony index was significantly lower during PAV+ than PSV (2.7% [1.0-5.4] vs. 22.7% [10.3-40.1], p < 0.001) and consistently decreased in every patient with PAV+. Esophageal pressure-time product (PTPes) did not significantly differ between the two modes (107 cmH2O/s/min [79-131] under PSV vs. 149 cmH2O/s/min [129-170] under PAV+, p = 0.092), but the proportion of PTPes lost in ineffective triggering was significantly lower with PAV+ (2 cmH2O/s/min [1-6] vs. 8 cmH2O/s/min [3-30], p = 0.012).ConclusionsAmong patients with ineffective triggering under PSV, PSL adjustment failed to eliminate asynchrony in 58% of them (21 of 36 patients). In these patients with refractory ineffective triggering, switching from PSV to PAV+ significantly reduced or even suppressed the incidence of asynchrony.
| S-EPMC8527439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMechanical ventilation is an important component of patient critical care, but it adds expense to an already high-cost setting. This study evaluates the cost-utility of 2 modes of ventilation: proportional-assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors (PAV+ mode) versus pressure-support ventilation (PSV).MethodsWe adapted a published Markov model to the Canadian hospital-payer perspective with a 1-year time horizon. The patient population modelled includes all patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation who have completed the acute phase of ventilatory support and have entered the recovery phase. Clinical and cost inputs were informed by a structured literature review, with the comparative effectiveness of PAV+ mode estimated via pragmatic meta-analysis. Primary outcomes of interest were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the (incremental) cost per QALY for patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Results were reported in 2017 Canadian dollars. We conducted probabilistic and scenario analyses to assess model uncertainty.ResultsOver 1 year, PSV had costs of $50 951 and accrued 0.25 QALYs. Use of PAV+ mode was associated with care costs of $43 309 and 0.29 QALYs. Compared to PSV, PAV+ mode was considered likely to be cost-effective, having lower costs (-$7642) and increased QALYs (+0.04) after 1 year. In cost-effectiveness acceptability analysis, 100% of simulations would be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY gained.InterpretationUse of PAV+ mode is expected to benefit patient care in the intensive care unit (ICU) and be a cost-effective alternative to PSV in the Canadian setting. Canadian hospital payers may therefore consider how best to optimally deliver mechanical ventilation in the ICU as they expand ICU capacity.
| S-EPMC9259387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring passive mechanical ventilation, the driving pressure of the respiratory system is an important mediator of ventilator-induced lung injury. Monitoring of driving pressure during assisted ventilation, similar to controlled ventilation, could be a tool to identify patients at risk of ventilator-induced lung injury. The aim of this study was to describe driving pressure over time and to identify whether and when high driving pressure occurs in critically ill patients during assisted ventilation.MethodsSixty-two patients fulfilling criteria for assisted ventilation were prospectively studied. Patients were included when the treating physician selected proportional assist ventilation (PAV+), a mode that estimates respiratory system compliance. In these patients, continuous recordings of all ventilator parameters were obtained for up to 72 h. Driving pressure was calculated as tidal volume-to-respiratory system compliance ratio. The distribution of driving pressure and tidal volume values over time was examined, and periods of sustained high driving pressure (≥ 15 cmH2O) and of stable compliance were identified and analyzed.ResultsThe analysis included 3200 h of ventilation, consisting of 8.8 million samples. For most (95%) of the time, driving pressure was < 15 cmH2O and tidal volume < 11 mL/kg (of ideal body weight). In most patients, high driving pressure was observed for short periods of time (median 2.5 min). Prolonged periods of high driving pressure were observed in five patients (8%). During the 661 periods of stable compliance, high driving pressure combined with a tidal volume ≥ 8 mL/kg was observed only in 11 cases (1.6%) pertaining to four patients. High driving pressure occurred almost exclusively when respiratory system compliance was low, and compliance above 30 mL/cmH2O excluded the presence of high driving pressure with 90% sensitivity and specificity.ConclusionsIn critically ill patients fulfilling criteria for assisted ventilation, and ventilated in PAV+ mode, sustained high driving pressure occurred in a small, yet not negligible number of patients. The presence of sustained high driving pressure was not associated with high tidal volume, but occurred almost exclusively when compliance was below 30 mL/cmH2O.
| S-EPMC6314935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe clinical effectiveness of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has yet to be demonstrated, and preliminary studies are required. The study aim was to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of NAVA versus pressure support ventilation (PSV) in critically ill adults at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV).MethodsAn open-label, parallel, feasibility RCT (n = 78) in four ICUs of one university-affiliated hospital. The primary outcome was mode adherence (percentage of time adherent to assigned mode), and protocol compliance (binary-≥ 65% mode adherence). Secondary exploratory outcomes included ventilator-free days (VFDs), sedation, and mortality.ResultsIn the 72 participants who commenced weaning, median (95% CI) mode adherence was 83.1% (64.0-97.1%) and 100% (100-100%), and protocol compliance was 66.7% (50.3-80.0%) and 100% (89.0-100.0%) in the NAVA and PSV groups respectively. Secondary outcomes indicated more VFDs to D28 (median difference 3.0 days, 95% CI 0.0-11.0; p = 0.04) and fewer in-hospital deaths (relative risk 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-0.9; p = 0.032) for NAVA. Although overall sedation was similar, Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) scores were closer to zero in NAVA compared to PSV (p = 0.020). No significant differences were observed in duration of MV, ICU or hospital stay, or ICU, D28, and D90 mortality.ConclusionsThis feasibility trial demonstrated good adherence to assigned ventilation mode and the ability to meet a priori protocol compliance criteria. Exploratory outcomes suggest some clinical benefit for NAVA compared to PSV. Clinical effectiveness trials of NAVA are potentially feasible and warranted.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01826890. Registered 9 April 2013.
| S-EPMC7224141 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Mechanical ventilation is an integral, but expensive, part of the intensive care unit (ICU). Optimal use of mechanical ventilation could save costs and improve patient outcomes. Here, the cost effectiveness of proportional assist ventilation (PAV™ ventilation by Medtronic) is estimated relative to pressure support ventilation (PSV). Methods: A cohort-level, clinical model was built using data from clinical trials. The model estimates patient-ventilator asynchrony >10%, tracheostomy, ventilator-associated pneumonia, other nosocomial infections, spontaneous breathing trial success, hypoxemia, and death. Cost and quality of life are associated with all events, with cost effectiveness defined as the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in the US and UK. Results: The mean cost of ICU care was lower with PAV™ than with PSV in the US and UK, but the total cost of care over 40 years was higher due to more patients surviving and incurring future care costs. Reduced time on mechanical ventilation, fewer nosocomial infections, and extended life expectancy with PAV™ drove QALY improvement. The cost per QALY gained with PAV™ was $8,628 and £2,985. Conclusion: PAV™ improves quality of life and reduces short-term costs. PAV™ is likely to be considered cost-effective over 40-years in the US and UK.
| S-EPMC5998768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this pilot study was to compare the amount of "mechanical power of ventilation" under adaptive support ventilation with nonautomated pressure-controlled ventilation.DesignSingle-center, observational prospective pilot study adjoining unitwide implementation of adaptive support ventilation in our department.SettingThe ICU of a nonacademic teaching hospital in the Netherlands.PatientsTwenty-four passive invasively ventilated critically ill patients expected to need of invasive ventilation beyond the following calendar day.Measurements and main resultsIn patients under adaptive support ventilation, only positive end-expiratory pressure and Fio2 were set by the caregivers-all other ventilator settings were under control of the ventilator; in patients under pressure-controlled ventilation, maximum airway pressure (Pmax), positive end-expiratory pressure, Fio2, and respiratory rate were set by the caregivers. Mechanical power of ventilation was calculated three times per day. Compared with pressure-controlled ventilation, mechanical power of ventilation with adaptive support ventilation was lower (15.1 [10.5-25.7] vs 22.9 [18.7-28.8] J/min; p = 0.04). Tidal volume was not different, but Pmax (p = 0.012) and respiratory rate (p = 0.012) were lower with adaptive support ventilation.ConclusionsThis study suggests adaptive support ventilation may have benefits compared with pressure-controlled ventilation with respect to the mechanical power of ventilation transferred from the ventilator to the respiratory system in passive invasively ventilated critically ill patients. The difference in mechanical power of ventilation is not a result of a difference in tidal volume, but the reduction in applied pressures and respiratory rate. The findings of this observational pilot study need to be confirmed in a larger, preferably randomized clinical trial.
| S-EPMC7886404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSpontaneous breathing trials are performed in critically ill intubated patients in order to assess readiness to be weaned from mechanical ventilation. In patients with difficult weaning (i.e. not extubated after their first SBT), performing SBT using pressure support with or without positive end-expiratory pressure or using T-piece is debated. As ventilatory support during SBT is greater on pressure support than on T-piece and as positive end-expiratory pressure can prevent weaning-induced pulmonary oedema, we hypothesized that their combination and large use of post-extubation non-invasive ventilation may shorten the time until successful extubation as compared with T-piece, without increasing the rate of reintubation.MethodsSBT-ICU is a monocentric prospective open labelled, randomized controlled superiority trial comparing two mechanical ventilation weaning strategies; i.e. daily spontaneous breathing trials using pressure support with positive end-expiratory pressure or T-piece. The primary outcome will be time until successful extubation (defined by as extubation, without reintubation or death within the seven following days).DiscussionThis paper describes the protocol of the SBT-ICU trial. Enrolment of patients in the study is ongoing.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03861117. Registered on March 1, 2019, before the beginning of inclusion.
| S-EPMC9742015 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Successful weaning from ventilators not only improves the quality of life of patients, but also reduces medical expenses. The aim of this study was to explore the association between nutritional provision and successful ventilator weaning. In this retrospective study data from the Respiratory Care Center of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital between October, 2017 and July, 2019 on patient characteristics, amount of nutrition delivered, and clinical outcomes were retrieved. A total of 280 ventilated patients were enrolled and divided into successful extubation and failed weaning groups. There were 178 males (63.6%) and 102 females (36.4%) with a mean age of 67.3 ± 16.9 years. The successful extubation group consisted of patients who tended towards ideal body weight during the weaning process (BMI 23.9 ± 5.0 versus 22.7 ± 4.8 kg/m2, p < 0.001). Patients from both groups initially received the same nutritional intervention, while patients of successful extubation received significantly more calories and protein after weaning (23.8 ± 7.8 kcal versus 27.8 ± 9.1 kcal, p < 0.001 and 0.97 ± 0.36 g versus 1.14 ± 0.42 g, p < 0.001). Successful weaning was associated with higher survival rate (p = 0.016), shortened hospital stay (p = 0.001), and reduced medical costs (p < 0.001). Overall, nutritional support with high calories and protein was associated with the probability of successful ventilator weaning in patients undergoing prolonged mechanical ventilation. Adequate nutrition is a determinant of successful ventilator weaning.
| S-EPMC9283331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The 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.PSV, NAVA, and PAV were set to obtain a tidal volume (VT) of 6 to 8 ml/kg (PSV???, NAVA???, and PAV???) in 16 intubated patients. Assistance was further decreased by 50% (PSV??, NAVA??, and PAV??) and then increased by 50% (PSV???, NAVA???, and PAV???) 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.PAV 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 PAV??? and NAVA??? versus 10.9 (IQR, 8.9 to 12.0) ml/kg with PSV???, P <0.05). EAdi was higher with PAV than with PSV at level??? and level???. The coefficient of variation of VT was higher with NAVA and PAV (19 (IQR, 14 to 31)% and 21 (IQR 16 to 29)% with NAVA??? and PAV??? versus 13 (IQR 11 to 18)% with PSV???, 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).PAV 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.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02056093 . Registered 18 December 2013.
| S-EPMC4355459 | biostudies-literature