English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Delivering synchronous assist during non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is challenging with flow- or pressure-controlled ventilators, especially in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) uses diaphragm electrical activity (EAdi) to control the ventilator. We evaluated patient-ventilator interaction in patients with COPD during NIV with pressure support ventilation (PSV) and NAVA using a recently introduced automated analysis.    Methods  Twelve COPD patients underwent three 30-minute trials: 1) PSV with dedicated NIV ventilator (NIV-PSV Vision ), 2) PSV with intensive care unit (ICU) ventilator (NIV-PSV Servo-I ), and 3) with NIV-NAVA. EAdi, flow, and airway pressure were recorded. Patient-ventilator interaction was evaluated by comparing airway pressure and EAdi waveforms with automated computer algorithms. The NeuroSync index was calculated as the percentage of timing errors between airway pressure and EAdi.    Results  The NeuroSync index was higher (larger error) for NIV-PSV Vision  (24 (IQR 15 to 30) %) and NIV-PSV Servo-I  (21 (IQR 15 to 26) %) compared to NIV-NAVA (5 (IQR 4 to 7) %;  P  <0.001). Wasted efforts, trigger delays and cycling-off errors were less with NAVA ( P  <0.05 for all). The NeuroSync index and the number of wasted efforts were strongly correlated (r 2  = 0.84), with a drastic increase in wasted efforts after timing errors reach 20%.    Conclusions  In COPD patients, non-invasive NAVA improves patient-ventilator interaction compared to PSV, delivered either by a dedicated or ICU ventilator. The automated analysis of patient-ventilator interaction allowed for an objective detection of patient-ventilator interaction during NIV. In addition, we found that progressive mismatch between neural effort and pneumatic timing is associated with wasted efforts.

critical care

Automated patient-ventilator interaction analysis during neurally adjusted non-invasive ventilation and pressure support ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease