4.5 Article

Physiologic response to various levels of pressure support and NAVA in prolonged weaning

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 107, 期 11, 页码 1748-1754

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2013.08.013

关键词

Mechanical ventilation; Patient-ventilator interaction; Ventilator weaning; Diaphragm electrical activity

资金

  1. Regione Toscana, under the Regional Health Research Program
  2. Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Volterra, Italy
  3. Maquet Critical Care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) is a mode of ventilation wherein the delivered assistance is proportional to diaphragm electrical activity (EAdi) throughout inspiration. We assessed the physiologic response to varying levels of NAVA and pressure support ventilation (PSV) in 13 tracheostomised patients with prolonged weaning. Each patient randomly underwent 8 trials, at four levels of assistance either in PSV and NAVA. i - high (no dyspnoea and/or distress); iv - low (associated with dyspnoea and/or distress; ii and iii - at similar to 75% and similar to 25% of the difference between high and low support respectively. We measured tidal volume (V-T), peak EAdi, (EAdi(peak)) and airway pressure, ineffective efforts and breathing pattern variability. With both NAVA and PSV, decreasing assistance resulted in parallel significant increase in EA-di(peak) associated with a concomitant reduction in V-T and minute ventilation in PSV, but not in NAVA. V-T variability significantly increased when reducing ventilatory assistance in PSV only, while remained unchanged varying the NAVA level. The ineffective triggering index was not significantly different between the two modes. In patients with prolonged weaning, with the specific settings adopted, compared to PSV, NAVA reduced the risk of over-assistance and overall improved patient-ventilator interaction, while not significantly affecting patient-ventilator synchrony. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据