Cai Wenqian, Zuo Yahui, Ma Yan, Li Mei, Li Meng, Zhang Lu
Department of Nursing, Children's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Department of Nursing, Yancheng First Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Yancheng, China.
Front Pediatr. 2025 Jul 10;13:1597337. doi: 10.3389/fped.2025.1597337. eCollection 2025.
Patient-ventilator asynchrony is a common problem in mechanical ventilation, leading to an increase in MV complications. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) is a relatively new modality of mechanical ventilation that can be used for both invasive and non-invasive ventilation. There is evidence that NAVA reduces asynchronous events, but the sample size is small and the effect on specific physiological and clinical outcomes in children is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of NAVA on physiological parameters and clinical outcomes.
We searched electronic databases up to 26 September 2024. Clinical trials comparing NAVA with conventional mechanical ventilation modes were included. The primary outcomes were physiological parameters, respiratory parameters, ventilator-related parameters, and other clinical outcomes. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool2. The certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the scoring methodology. Apply meta-analysis as much as possible, and use qualitative analysis when conditions are not met.
Eleven studies involving 224 children met the inclusion criteria for this review. Four were randomized cross-over trials, three were prospective cross-over trials, and four were retrospective studies. There were significant differences in the methods and quality of the included studies. Meta-analyses revealed significant differences in PIP, RR, pO, and the asynchronous index (AI) when compared to traditional modes of mechanical ventilation. However, no significant differences were observed in FiO, PEEP, TV, pH, pCO, SpO, EAdimax, and EAdimin.
This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that while NAVA has advantages for certain short-term physiological outcomes, the level of evidence remains low. Consequently, larger and higher-quality studies are necessary to identify potential short- and long-term differences between various ventilation patterns.
患者 - 呼吸机不同步是机械通气中的常见问题,会导致机械通气并发症增加。神经调节通气辅助(NAVA)是一种相对较新的机械通气模式,可用于有创和无创通气。有证据表明NAVA可减少不同步事件,但样本量较小,且对儿童特定生理和临床结局的影响存在争议。因此,我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估NAVA对生理参数和临床结局的影响。
我们检索了截至2024年9月26日的电子数据库。纳入比较NAVA与传统机械通气模式的临床试验。主要结局为生理参数、呼吸参数、呼吸机相关参数及其他临床结局。两位综述作者独立提取数据,并使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具2评估研究质量。根据评分方法评估证据的确定性。尽可能应用荟萃分析,不满足条件时使用定性分析。
11项涉及224名儿童的研究符合本综述的纳入标准。4项为随机交叉试验,3项为前瞻性交叉试验,4项为回顾性研究。纳入研究的方法和质量存在显著差异。荟萃分析显示,与传统机械通气模式相比,在气道峰压(PIP)﹑呼吸频率(RR)﹑动脉血氧分压(pO)和不同步指数(AI)方面存在显著差异。然而,在吸入氧浓度(FiO)﹑呼气末正压(PEEP)﹑潮气量(TV)﹑pH值﹑动脉血二氧化碳分压(pCO)﹑脉搏血氧饱和度(SpO)﹑最大膈肌电活动(EAdimax)和最小膈肌电活动(EAdimin)方面未观察到显著差异。
这项系统评价和荟萃分析表明,虽然NAVA在某些短期生理结局方面具有优势,但证据水平仍然较低。因此,需要进行更大规模和更高质量的研究,以确定不同通气模式之间潜在的短期和长期差异。