↓ Skip to main content

Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) or Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) during spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a crossover trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) or Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV) during spontaneous breathing trials in critically ill patients: a crossover trial
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12890-017-0484-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliana C. Ferreira, Fabia Diniz-Silva, Henrique T. Moriya, Adriano M. Alencar, Marcelo B. P. Amato, Carlos R. R. Carvalho

Abstract

Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) is a proportional ventilatory mode that uses the electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) to offer ventilatory assistance in proportion to patient effort. NAVA has been increasingly used for critically ill patients, but it has not been evaluated during spontaneous breathing trials (SBT). We designed a pilot trial to assess the feasibility of using NAVA during SBTs, and to compare the breathing pattern and patient-ventilator asynchrony of NAVA with Pressure Support (PSV) during SBTs. We conducted a crossover trial in the ICU of a university hospital in Brazil and included mechanically ventilated patients considered ready to undergo an SBT on the day of the study. Patients underwent two SBTs in randomized order: 30 min in PSV of 5 cmH2O or NAVA titrated to generate equivalent peak airway pressure (Paw), with a positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cmH2O. The ICU team, blinded to ventilatory mode, evaluated whether patients passed each SBT. We captured flow, Paw and electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) from the ventilator and used it to calculate respiratory rate (RR), tidal volume (VT), and EAdi. Detection of asynchrony events used waveform analysis and we calculated the asynchrony index as the number of asynchrony events divided by the number of neural cycles. We included 20 patients in the study. All patients passed the SBT in PSV, and three failed the SBT in NAVA. Five patients were reintubated and the extubation failure rate was 25% (95% CI 9-49%). Respiratory parameters were similar in the two modes: VT = 6.1 (5.5-6.5) mL/Kg in NAVA vs. 5.5 (4.8-6.1) mL/Kg in PSV (p = 0.076) and RR = 27 (17-30) rpm in NAVA vs. 26 (20-30) rpm in PSV, p = 0.55. NAVA reduced AI, with a median of 11.5% (4.2-19.7) compared to 24.3% (6.3-34.3) in PSV (p = 0.033). NAVA reduces patient-ventilator asynchrony index and generates a respiratory pattern similar to PSV during SBTs. Patients considered ready for mechanical ventilation liberation may be submitted to an SBT in NAVA using the same objective criteria used for SBTs in PSV. ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01337271 ), registered April 12, 2011.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 10%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Master 12 9%
Other 10 7%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 53 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 19%
Engineering 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 62 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2020.
All research outputs
#6,136,971
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#433
of 1,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,507
of 331,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#21
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.