Abstract
Purpose
Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has been shown to improve patient–ventilator interaction and reduce asynchronies in intubated patients, as opposed to pressure support ventilation (PSV). This is a short-term head-to-head physiologic comparison between PSV and NAVA in delivering noninvasive ventilation through a helmet (h-NIV), in patients with postextubation hypoxemic acute respiratory failure.
Methods
Ten patients underwent three 20-min trials of h-NIV in PSV, NAVA, and PSV again. Arterial blood gases (ABGs) were assessed at the end of each trial. Diaphragm electrical activity (EAdi) and airway pressure (P aw) were recorded to derive neural and mechanical respiratory rate and timing, inspiratory (delayTR-insp) and expiratory trigger delays (delayTR-exp), time of synchrony between diaphragm contraction and ventilator assistance (timesynch), and the asynchrony index (AI).
Results
ABGs, peak EAdi, peak P aw, respiratory rate, either neural or mechanical, neural timing, and delayTR-exp were not different between trials. Compared with PSV, with NAVA the mechanical expiratory time was significantly shorter, while the inspiratory time and duty cycle were greater. Timesynch was 0.79 ± 0.35 s in NAVA versus 0.60 ± 0.30 s and 0.55 ± 0.29 s during the PSV trials (p < 0.01 for both). AI exceeded 10% during both PSV trials, while not in NAVA (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
Compared with PSV, NAVA improves patient–ventilator interaction and synchrony, with no difference in gas exchange, respiratory rate, and neural drive and timing.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is an effective technique in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) [1]. Tolerance is a crucial determinant of NIV success [2, 3] and depends on both the interface [4] and the interaction between a patient’s spontaneous breathing and ventilator assistance [5].
The helmet is a relatively new interface that has been shown to be more tolerated than the face mask over time, requiring fewer discontinuations and allowing longer time of continuous application [6, 7]. Compared with the conventional application using a mask, however, NIV delivery by helmet (h-NIV) has a more problematic patient–ventilator interaction. This regards primarily the synchrony between spontaneous breathing and ventilator cycling, consequent on specific characteristics of this interface, such as the soft compliant wall, the elevated internal compressible volume, and, most importantly, the upward displacement of the helmet due to the movement of the soft collar throughout insufflation [8]. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) is a form of partial ventilator assistance in which the machine delivers assistance in proportion to the electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi), as assessed by means of transesophageal electromyography, which is the closest available signal to the brainstem respiratory centers [9, 10].
Compared with pressure support ventilation (PSV), NAVA has been shown to improve patient–ventilator interaction in intubated patients with ARF and healthy volunteers undergoing h-NIV [11]. Accordingly, we hypothesized that, compared with PSV, NAVA should also enhance patient–ventilator interaction and synchrony in patients with ARF during h-NIV. This study was therefore designed to evaluate the short-term physiologic effects of NAVA in delivering h-NIV, by performing a head-to-head comparison with PSV.
Methods
The study was performed in the intensive care units (ICUs) of the University Hospital “Maggiore della Carità” (Novara, Italy) and Policlinico “A. Gemelli” (Roma, Italy) between October 2008 and June 2009. The ethics committees of both institutions approved the protocol and informed consent was obtained from each patient (expanded methods in the electronic supplementary material, ESM).
Subjects and study protocol
We considered eligible all patients presenting, after extubation following at least 48 h of invasive ventilation for ARF, respiratory rate (RR) greater than 30 breaths/min, dyspnea, and arterial oxygen tension to inspiratory oxygen fraction (PaO2/FiO2) less than 300 breathing through a Venturi mask at a nominal FiO2 of at least 40%. The exclusion criteria are provided in the ESM.
After enrolment, a catheter designed for EAdi detection (Maquet Critical Care, Sölna, Sweden) was inserted and correct positioning was ensured [12]. A transparent helmet (Castar, Starmed, Mirandola) was placed, secured, and connected to the ventilator, as previously described.
Each patient underwent three 20-min NIV trials delivered by a Servo-I ventilator (Maquet Critical Care, Sölna, Sweden). The following trials were applied in sequence: (1) first application of PSV (PSV1), (2) NAVA, (3) PSV again (PSV2). Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was always set at 10 cmH2O. Both PSV trials were delivered with a preset inspiratory pressure of 12 cmH2O, using the NIV software compensating for air leaks. NAVA was set to achieve a peak inspiratory airway pressure (P aw peak) equivalent to the preset PSV, as previously described [12]. Dedicated software to deliver NAVA in NIV mode was not available at the time of the study. The airway pressure limit was set at 30 cmH2O throughout the study period. The fastest rate of pressurization and an expiratory trigger threshold (ETTH) of 50% of peak inspiratory flow were set for PSV. NAVA has a fixed I/E cycling set at 70% of peak EAdi (EAdipeak). FiO2 was set to obtain a peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) value of at least 94% before starting the first trial and was then maintained unmodified throughout the study period. Patients did not receive sedatives throughout the period of the study protocol and in the previous 6 h. Detailed criteria for protocol discontinuation are provided in the ESM.
Data acquisition and analysis
Arterial blood was sampled at the end of each trial for gas analysis from a catheter placed in the radial artery. Airflow, airway pressure (P aw), and EAdi were acquired from the ventilator through a RS232 interface at a sampling rate of 100 Hz, recorded by means of dedicated software (NAVA Tracker V. 2.0, Maquet Critical Care, Sölna, Sweden). The last 5 min of each trial was recorded, stored on a personal computer, and manually analyzed off-line using customized software based on Microsoft Excel, as previously described [12]. Ventilator inspiratory time (TImec), expiratory time (TEmec), and rate of ventilator cycling (RRmec) were determined on the flow tracing. Patient’s neural respiratory rate (RRneu), neural inspiratory time (TIneu), and neural expiratory time (TEneu) were determined on the EAdi tracing; TIneu was measured as the time interval between onset of EAdi swing and EAdipeak. Neural (TI/TTOTneu) and mechanical (TI/TTOTmec) inspiratory duty cycle were computed as the ratio between TIneu and total neural respiratory time (TTOTNeu) and as the ratio between TImec and total mechanical respiratory time (TTOTmec), respectively. The amount of ventilator assistance was evaluated as the integral of P aw over TImec, either per breath (PTPaw/br) or per minute (PTPaw/min) [13].
Leaks were computed as the difference between the volume insufflated into the helmet by the ventilator (h-VTinsp) and the volume exhaled from the helmet back to the ventilator (h-VTexp) multiplied by RRmec; leaks are expressed as both absolute value (l/min) and rate of the exhaled volume over 1 min [5].
The inspiratory trigger delay (delayTR-insp) was calculated as the time lag between onset of EAdi swing and commencement of ventilator support, while the expiratory trigger delay (delayTR-exp) was calculated as the time lag between the point at which EAdi started to fall toward baseline and the end of ventilator support. The time of synchrony between neural effort and ventilator support (timesynch) was calculated as the period of time in the course of inspiration during which the diaphragm was active and the ventilator was concurrently delivering support [8]. To estimate the extent of asynchrony we used the asynchrony index (AI) which expresses in percentage the number of asynchronous events (ineffective efforts, auto-triggering, and double triggering) divided by the sum of ventilator cycles and ineffective efforts [14].
Statistical analysis
Normal data distribution was confirmed by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p > 0.1). All data were analyzed with the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures; when a significant difference was found, the Student–Newman–Keuls post hoc test was applied. Differences in the proportion of patients with AI greater than 10% between trials were ascertained with the Fisher exact test. P values no greater than 0.05 were considered significant.
Results
All patients completed the study protocol. Anthropometric and clinical characteristics of the patients at enrolment are provided in Table 1. Information about eligible patients and reasons for exclusion is provided in detail in the ESM.
As described in Table 2, air leaks, either in absolute value (l/min) or percent, were significantly larger with NAVA than with PSV (p < 0.05 NAVA vs. PSV1 and PSV2). The effects of the two modes on gas exchange, breathing pattern, and patient–ventilator interaction are shown in Table 3. Arterial gases were not different between PSV1, NAVA, and PSV2. Both RRneu and RRmec did not show significant differences between the three trials. The neural timing, i.e., TIneu, TEneu, TI/TTOTneu, was also not significantly different between trials. The mechanical timing, in contrast, differed between trials: TImec was significantly longer in NAVA (1.09 ± 0.35 s), compared with both PSV1 (0.67 ± 0.12 s) (p < 0.001) and PSV2 (0.65 ± 0.11 s) (p < 0.001); TEmec was shorter in NAVA (1.72 ± 0.60 s), in comparison with PSV1 (2.23 ± 0.99 s) (p < 0.05) only, while it was not significantly different from PSV2 (2.00 ± 0.59); TI/TTOTmec was greater in NAVA (0.39 ± 0.04), as compared with both PSV1 (0.25 ± 0.05) and PSV2 (0.25 ± 0.05) (p < 0.001).
The neural drive to breathe, as indicated by EAdipeak, was not significantly different between PSV1, NAVA, and PSV2. P aw peak also did not significantly differ between trials. PTPaw/br and PTPaw/min, however, were greater in NAVA (5.9 ± 2.9 cmH2O s and 123 ± 42 cmH2O s min−1, respectively) than in PSV1 (3.6 ± 0.8 cmH2O s and 78 ± 19 cmH2O s min−1, respectively) (p < 0.01 for both) and PSV2 (3.2 ± 0.9 cmH2O s and 76 ± 21.5 cmH2O s min−1, respectively) (p < 0.01 for both).
Patient–ventilator synchrony was affected by the mode of ventilation. In fact, delayTR-insp was shorter in NAVA (0.14 ± 0.06 s) than in PSV1 (0.31 ± 0.13 s) and PSV2 (0.36 ± 0.13 s) (p < 0.001 for both), while delayTR-exp did not significantly differ between trials. Timesynch was longer with NAVA (0.79 ± 0.35 s) than in PSV1 (0.60 ± 0.30 s) and PSV2 (0.55 ± 0.29 s) (p < 0.01 for both).
Figure 1 shows an experimental record from one patient. The ineffective efforts occurring during PSV, as indicated by the mismatch between P aw and EAdi, disappeared with NAVA; it is noteworthy, however, that consequent above all on the upward displacement of the helmet, the initial part of the inspiration remained unassisted. As depicted in Fig. 2, AI exceeded 10% in 70% and 80% of patients in PSV1 and PSV2, respectively, while no patient reached that threshold with NAVA (p < 0.001 NAVA vs. PSV1 and PSV2). Figure 3 depicts the relative incidence of ineffective efforts, auto-triggered and double-triggered breaths on the overall number of asynchronies. Ineffective efforts were the highest represented form of asynchrony during PSV. No asynchrony was observed with NAVA.
Discussion
This is, to our knowledge, the first study evaluating NAVA in a head-to-head comparison with PSV. We found in patients receiving h-NIV for postextubation hypoxemic ARF that, compared with PSV, NAVA improved patient–ventilator interaction and overall resulted in a better synchrony, with no significant difference in gas exchange, respiratory rate, and neural drive and timing.
Before discussing these results, some limitations of our study must be addressed. First of all, the inspiratory pressure support was arbitrarily set for all patients at 12 cmH2O, a value already used by previous investigators to provide NIV in ICU patients. Very recently, Vargas et al. [15] showed that to achieve with h-NIV the same effects of NIV delivered through a facial mask, both PEEP and PSV should be increased by 50%; unfortunately this information was not available at the time our study was designed. It should be noted, however, that to minimize the negative effect on synchrony related to the helmet compliance [8], we applied 10 cmH2O of PEEP, a value definitely higher compared with the average 5 cmH2O used by Vargas et al. [15]. The preset inspiratory support in our study was 12 cmH2O, which is 20% higher than the average 10 cmH2O used by Vargas et al. [15] and, as a matter of fact, was effective in maintaining PaCO2 and pH within the range of normal physiologic values. Second, we used the “NAVA preview” function to estimate the NAVA level necessary to achieve a level of assistance similar to that provided with PSV, as previously described [12, 16, 17]. Consequent on the elevated breath-to-breath variability in EAdi and P aw observed with NAVA [12, 18, 19], this approach could be unsuccessful. As shown in Table 3, however, the average values of P aw peak during NAVA were similar to those applied in the two PSV trials. Furthermore, as PaCO2 and EAdipeak were not different between trials, it is quite reasonable to assume that comparable amounts of assistance were provided with NAVA and PSV. Third, as previously done [8, 20–22], we considered the point in time corresponding to EAdipeak as the termination of TIneu, while, during NAVA, cycling from inspiration to expiration (I/E) occurs when EAdi falls to 70% of EAdipeak, which introduces an inherent delay between the end of neural inspiration and the end of mechanical inspiration that explains why, during NAVA, TImec exceeds TIneu. Fourth, we included patients who developed hypoxemia and respiratory distress following extubation. As postextubation ARF is a somewhat specific type of respiratory failure, it is uncertain whether our results can be extended to other forms of ARF. Finally, we did not assess patient tolerance to h-NIV throughout trials. As NAVA improved delayTR-insp, an improvement in patient comfort could be expected. It should be noted, however, that patient tolerance, while being significantly affected in clinical studies covering a long-term period (i.e., days) [6, 7], did not vary in previous short-term studies (i.e., minutes) [4, 8, 15, 23]. In particular, Vargas et al. [15] did not find significant changes in patient comfort, as assessed by a comfort score, when varying PEEP and inspiratory assistance, in spite of significant changes in delayTR-insp and inspiratory effort. Also, Costa et al. [23] who evaluated different PSV settings in healthy subjects undergoing h-NIV, did not find significant variations in patient comfort, as assessed by visual analog scale, despite significant changes in breathing pattern and inspiratory effort.
The most valuable difference between NAVA and PSV we observed regarded patient–ventilator synchrony, which improved in NAVA, as opposed to PSV. The clinical benefit of a better patient–ventilator synchrony during NIV has not been fully established yet. Asynchronies have been found to be related to increased gastric distension [24] and patient discomfort [25]. Very recently, Vignaux et al. [5] demonstrated that patients with AI greater than 10% during NIV have a lower comfort, as opposed to those with AI less than 10%, suggesting that a better synchrony improves patient tolerance to NIV.
DelayTR-insp was halved with NAVA, as compared with PSV, a difference that could have been amplified by the characteristics of the helmet, since, compared with the facial mask, this interface worsens the performance of the pneumatic trigger during PSV [8]. Although the rate of improvement in delayTR-insp we observed with NAVA, as opposed to PSV, is quite similar to those reported by other studies performed in intubated patients [21, 22], further studies are necessary to ascertain whether this improvement in delayTR-insp would be observed with different NIV interfaces.
Differently from previous studies comparing these two modes during either invasive ventilation [21, 22] or NIV [11], the difference in delayTR-exp between NAVA and PSV is here quite small and not significant. Type of interface [8, 26], mechanical properties of the respiratory system of the subjects investigated [27, 28], and expiratory trigger threshold settings [28] are all factors potentially contributing to explain this discrepancy. Costa et al. [26] showed that delayTR-exp is reduced with the helmet, as opposed to the endotracheal tube, when setting ETTH between 25 and 50% of the peak inspiratory flow; they also found that reducing ETTH down to 5% of the peak inspiratory flow remarkably increases delayTR-exp, irrespective of the interface. Delayed ventilator cycling has been observed in the presence of obstructive airway disease, which is significantly affected by ETTH, i.e., the lower ETTH, the higher delayTR-exp [28]. We studied patients with hypoxemic ARF and set ETTH in PSV mode at 50% of the peak inspiratory flow. Different results would be expected when evaluating COPD patients and adopting lower ETTH in PSV. In our study, delayTR-exp during PSV is lower than reported by Piquilloud et al. [21] who studied intubated patients, 33% of whom had COPD. DelayTR-exp in PSV was even higher in another study also performed in intubated patients, 78% of whom had COPD [22]; in addition, these authors utilized a fixed ETTH corresponding to 5% of peak inspiratory flow [22]. Moerer et al. [11] compared in normal volunteers h-NIV delivered in PSV mode, either pneumatically or neurally triggered. Compared with our data, they found longer delayTR-exp when pneumatically cycling, and shorter delayTR-exp when cycling was neurally determined. The longer delayTR-exp when pneumatically cycling is consequent on the different ETTH, i.e., 5% in the Moerer study, as opposed to 50% in ours. The shorter delayTR-exp they observed when I/E was neurally determined is explained by the different type of analysis performed: in our study cycling-off in NAVA occurred when EAdi fell to 70% of EAdipeak, while we considered the end of TIneu as the point in time corresponding to EAdipeak; in contrast, in the study by Moerer et al. [11] I/E occurred when EAdi fell to 60% of EAdipeak and the end of TIneu also corresponded to the point at which EAdi fell to 60% of EAdipeak, thereby eliminating the aforementioned inherent delay.
Overall, patient–ventilator interaction and synchrony improved with NAVA, compared with PSV, as indicated by the significantly longer timesynch and lower AI. It is noteworthy that timesynch accounted for 86% of TIneu in NAVA, and 71% and 65% of TIneu during PSV1 and PSV2, respectively. This better matching resulted in an improved ventilator assistance, i.e., an increased PTPaw/br and PTPaw/min, in NAVA, as opposed to PSV. It is worth mentioning that although several studies performed in patients undergoing invasive ventilation showed that, compared with PSV, NAVA significantly decreases the occurrence of asynchronies, this is, to our knowledge, the first study showing that asynchronies are also significantly reduced in NIV. Interestingly, this was achieved despite a significantly larger amount of air leaks observed with NAVA, as opposed to both PSV trials. It is important to remark that, in contrast to NAVA, PSV was delivered using a dedicated NIV software.
In keeping with the results of previous studies comparing the helmet and oronasal mask in delivering NIV, we found that, despite the improvement in patient–ventilator interaction observed with NAVA, there was no significant difference in ABGs between the two modes [8, 15]. Vignaux et al. [5], who determined the prevalence of asynchronies in 60 patients receiving NIV for treatment of ARF, did not report differences in gas exchange between patients with AI above and below the 10% threshold.
EAdi was also not significantly different between NAVA and the PSV trials. On the one hand, PSV delivered through a helmet was proved to be effective in reducing inspiratory effort in healthy subjects [23], stable COPD [8], and patients at risk of developing postextubation respiratory distress [15]. On the other hand, previous studies performed in intubated patients showed that, compared with PSV, NAVA improves patient–ventilator synchrony without determining a more pronounced decrease in neural effort [12, 16, 22].
In conclusion, the results of this study show that, compared to PSV, delivering h-NIV with NAVA is equally effective in maintaining an adequate gas exchange and has similar effects on neural effort, while improving patient–ventilator interaction and decreasing asynchronies. It is worth remarking, however, that this is just a short-term physiologic study performed on a limited number of patients and that further studies are clearly necessary to ascertain whether or not the advantage suggested by our data translates to a better NIV outcome.
References
Evans TW (2001) International consensus conferences in intensive care medicine: non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in acute respiratory failure. Organised jointly by the American Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, and the Societe de Reanimation de Langue Francaise, and approved by the ATS Board of Directors. Intensive Care Med 27:166–178
Squadrone E, Frigerio P, Fogliati C, Gregoretti C, Conti G, Antonelli M, Costa R, Baiardi P, Navalesi P (2004) Noninvasive versus invasive ventilation in COPD patients with severe acute respiratory failure deemed to require ventilatory assistance. Intensive Care Med 30:1303–1310
Carlucci A, Richard JC, Wysocki M, Lepage E, Brochard L (2001) Noninvasive versus conventional mechanical ventilation. An epidemiologic survey. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 163:874–880
Navalesi P, Fanfulla F, Frigerio P, Gregoretti C, Nava S (2000) Physiologic evaluation of noninvasive mechanical ventilation delivered with three types of masks in patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure. Crit Care Med 28:1785–1790
Vignaux L, Vargas F, Roeseler J, Tassaux D, Thille AW, Kossowsky MP, Brochard L, Jolliet P (2009) Patient–ventilator asynchrony during non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure: a multicenter study. Intensive Care Med 35:840–846
Antonelli M, Conti G, Pelosi P, Gregoretti C, Pennisi MA, Costa R, Severgnini P, Chiaranda M, Proietti R (2002) New treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: noninvasive pressure support ventilation delivered by helmet—a pilot controlled trial. Crit Care Med 30:602–608
Antonelli M, Pennisi MA, Pelosi P, Gregoretti C, Squadrone V, Rocco M, Cecchini L, Chiumello D, Severgnini P, Proietti R, Navalesi P, Conti G (2004) Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation using a helmet in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a feasibility study. Anesthesiology 100:16–24
Navalesi P, Costa R, Ceriana P, Carlucci A, Prinianakis G, Antonelli M, Conti G, Nava S (2007) Non-invasive ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: helmet versus facial mask. Intensive Care Med 33:74–81
Sinderby C, Navalesi P, Beck J, Skrobik Y, Comtois N, Friberg S, Gottfried SB, Lindstrom L (1999) Neural control of mechanical ventilation in respiratory failure. Nat Med 5:1433–1436
Navalesi P, Costa R (2003) New modes of mechanical ventilation: proportional assist ventilation, neurally adjusted ventilatory assist, and fractal ventilation. Curr Opin Crit Care 9:51–58
Moerer O, Beck J, Brander L, Costa R, Quintel M, Slutsky AS, Brunet F, Sinderby C (2008) Subject–ventilator synchrony during neural versus pneumatically triggered non-invasive helmet ventilation. Intensive Care Med 34:1615–1623
Colombo D, Cammarota G, Bergamaschi V, De Lucia M, Corte FD, Navalesi P (2008) Physiologic response to varying levels of pressure support and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in patients with acute respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med 34:2010–2018
Navalesi P, Hernandez P, Wongsa A, Laporta D, Goldberg P, Gottfried SB (1996) Proportional assist ventilation in acute respiratory failure: effects on breathing pattern and inspiratory effort. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 154:1330–1338
Thille AW, Rodriguez P, Cabello B, Lellouche F, Brochard L (2006) Patient–ventilator asynchrony during assisted mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med 32:1515–1522
Vargas F, Thille A, Lyazidi A, Campo FR, Brochard L (2009) Helmet with specific settings versus facemask for noninvasive ventilation. Crit Care Med 37:1921–1928
Terzi N, Pelieu I, Guittet L, Ramakers M, Seguin A, Daubin C, Charbonneau P, du Cheyron D, Lofaso F (2010) Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in patients recovering spontaneous breathing after acute respiratory distress syndrome: physiological evaluation. Crit Care Med 38:1830–1837
Karagiannidis C, Lubnow M, Philipp A, Riegger GA, Schmid C, Pfeifer M, Mueller T (2010) Autoregulation of ventilation with neurally adjusted ventilatory assist on extracorporeal lung support. Intensive Care Med 36:2038–2044
Schmidt M, Demoule A, Cracco C, Gharbi A, Fiamma MN, Straus C, Duguet A, Gottfried SB, Similowski T (2010) Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist increases respiratory variability and complexity in acute respiratory failure. Anesthesiology 112:670–681
Brander L, Leong-Poi H, Beck J, Brunet F, Hutchison SJ, Slutsky AS, Sinderby C (2009) Titration and implementation of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in critically ill patients. Chest 135:695–703
Parthasarathy S, Jubran A, Tobin MJ (2000) Assessment of neural inspiratory time in ventilator-supported patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 162:546–552
Piquilloud L, Vignaux L, Bialais E, Roeseler J, Sottiaux T, Laterre PF, Jolliet P, Tassaux D (2011) Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist improves patient–ventilator interaction. Intensive Care Med 37:263–271
Spahija J, de Marchie M, Albert M, Bellemare P, Delisle S, Beck J, Sinderby C (2010) Patient–ventilator interaction during pressure support ventilation and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist. Crit Care Med 38:518–526
Costa R, Navalesi P, Antonelli M, Cavaliere F, Craba A, Proietti R, Conti G (2005) Physiologic evaluation of different levels of assistance during noninvasive ventilation delivered through a helmet. Chest 128:2984–2990
Abdel-Hady H, Mohareb S, Khashaba M, Abu-Alkhair M, Greisen G (1998) Randomized controlled trial of discontinuation of nasal-CPAP in stable preterm infants breathing room air. Acta Paediatr 87:82–87
Achour L, Letellier C, Cuvelier A, Verin E, Muir JF (2007) Asynchrony and cyclic variability in pressure support noninvasive ventilation. Comput Biol Med 37:1308–1320
Costa R, Navalesi P, Spinazzola G, Ferrone G, Pellegrini A, Cavaliere F, Proietti R, Antonelli M, Conti G (2010) Influence of ventilator settings on patient–ventilator synchrony during pressure support ventilation with different interfaces. Intensive Care Med 36:1363–1370
Nava S, Bruschi C, Fracchia C, Braschi A, Rubini F (1997) Patient–ventilator interaction and inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation in patients with different pathologies. Eur Respir J 10:177–183
Tassaux D, Gainnier M, Battisti A, Jolliet P (2005) Impact of expiratory trigger setting on delayed cycling and inspiratory muscle workload. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 172:1283–1289
Acknowledgments
This work has not been funded by any external source. The preliminary results of this study were presented at the 2009 meeting of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Vienna. CO and PN contributed to the development of a new interface, whose license for patent belongs to Starmed S.p.A., and might receive royalties for that invention in the future.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
G. Cammarota and C. Olivieri contributed equally.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cammarota, G., Olivieri, C., Costa, R. et al. Noninvasive ventilation through a helmet in postextubation hypoxemic patients: physiologic comparison between neurally adjusted ventilatory assist and pressure support ventilation. Intensive Care Med 37, 1943–1950 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-011-2382-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-011-2382-2