Comparação entre os modos Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist e Ventilação com Pressão de Suporte como ventilação protetora em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo

Silva FD. Comparison between Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist and Pressure Support Ventilation to deliver protective ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome [thesis]. São Paulo: “Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo”; 2017. Rationale: Protective mechanical ventilation, which consists of the use of tidal volumes equal or less than 6 ml/kg of predicted body weight and plateau pressure below 30 cmH2O, is recommended for patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). But it usually requires controlled ventilation and sedation. Using Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) or Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV), which are partial ventilatory modes, could be an alternative to offer protective ventilation, but in these modes tidal volume (Vt) varies in proportion to patient effort and we don ́t know if it is possible to maintain protective ventilation. Objective: To compare Vt, respiratory pattern and patient-ventilator asynchrony in NAVA with PSV in patients with ARDS. Methods: We conducted a randomized crossover clinical trial comparing NAVA and PSV in patients with ARDS admitted to ICUs (NCT01519258). Patients were ventilated with NAVA and PSV for 15 minutes each, in random order. Inspiratory support in NAVA and PSV were titrated prior to randomization to deliver Vt of 4-6mL/Kg, while other respiratory parameters including PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure) and FIO2 (fraction of inspired oxygen) were kept constant. Flow, Peak airway pressure (Paw) and electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) were captured from the ventilator using Servo Tracker (Maquet, Sweden), and cycles were processed with MatLab (Mathworks, USA), which automatically detected inspiratory efforts and calculated respiratory rate (RR) and Vt. Dectection of asynchrony events was based on analysis of the ventilator curves. We used paired t-test to compare NAVA and PSV, and p values <0.05 were considered significant. Results: 20 patients were included and 14 patients completed the study. Tidal volume was kept within protective levels, 5.8 ± 1.1 in NAVA and 5.6 ± 1.0 in PSV, p = 0.455. There was no difference in the RR (24 ± 7 and 23 ± 7) and EAdi [10.8 (6.3-16.1) and 10.1 (6.7-12.8)] comparing NAVA and PSV, respectively. Paw was higher in NAVA (21 ± 3) than in PSV (19 ± 3), p = 0.001, but remained in protective levels. The partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) was higher in NAVA [88 (69-96)] than in PSV [80 (66-96)], p = 0.045 and PaO2/FIO2 ratio was higher in NAVA [241 (203 265)] compared to PSV [236 (144-260)], p = 0.050. Trigger delay was more common in PSV [21% (15-51)] than in NAVA [3% (0.3-14)] (p=0.020). Double triggering was observed more frequently in NAVA than in PSV (p=0.105) and ineffective efforts were uncommon and similar in both modes (p=0.371). The median of the Asynchrony Index was 33% (20-66%) in PSV and 13% (5-27%) in NAVA (p = 0.0003). Conclusion: During protective mechanical ventilation, NAVA and PSV presented similar respiratory pattern, while NAVA improved gas exchange and reduced patient-ventilator asynchrony in relation to PSV. In patients with ARDS with inspiratory efforts, NAVA may be an alternative to provide protective mechanical ventilation. Descriptors: respiration artificial; respiratory distress syndrome, adult; interactive ventilatory support; positive-pressure respiration; intensive care units; respiratory insufficiency.