Noninvasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist Versus High Flow Cannula Support After Congenital Heart Surgery.

BACKGROUND

Extubation failure rates for critical patients in pediatric intensive care units (ICUs) range from 5% to 29%. Noninvasive (NIV) ventilation has been shown to decrease extubation failure. We compared reintubation rates and outcomes of patients supported with NIV neurally adjusted ventilation assist (NAVA) versus historical controls supported with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC).

METHODS

Case-control study of infants less than three months of age who underwent cardiac surgery and received NIV support after extubation from January 2011 to May 2017. All patients supported with NIV NAVA after it became available in September 2013 were compared to matched patients extubated to HFNC from prior to September 2013.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients identified for the NIV NAVA group were matched with 42 historical controls supported with HFNC. Groups had similar baseline characteristics based on rate of acute kidney injury, number of single ventricle patients, Society of Thoracic Surgeons-European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (STAT) category, age, weight, bypass time, and duration of intubation. There was no significant difference in reintubation rates within 72 hours (14.3% in the HFNC group and 16.7% in the NIV NAVA group, = 1.0). Median duration from extubation to coming off NIV support was longer in the NIV NAVA group (3.6 days vs 0.6 days, < .001). Median time from extubation to ICU discharge was longer in the NIV NAVA group (10.5 vs 6.8 days, = .02), as was total postoperative ICU length of stay (LOS; 17.6 vs 12.2, = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of NIV NAVA for postextubation support did not reduce reintubation rates compared to HFNC. Further study is needed as adoption of NIV NAVA may prolong LOS.