Search

Proportional modes of ventilation assist the patient by adapting to his/her effort, which contrasts with all other modes. The two proportional modes are referred to as neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) and proportional assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors (PAV+): they deliver inspiratory assist in proportion to the patient’s effort, and hence directly respond to changes in ventilatory needs. Due to their working principles, NAVA and PAV+ have the ability to provide self-adjusted lung and diaphragm-protective ventilation. As these proportional modes differ from ‘classical’ modes such as pressure support ventilation (PSV), setting the inspiratory assist level is often puzzling for clinicians at the bedside as it is not based on usual parameters such as tidal volumes and PaCO2 targets. This paper provides an in-depth overview of the working principles of NAVA and PAV+ and the physiological differences with PSV. Understanding these differences is fundamental for applying any assisted mode at the bedside. We review different methods for setting inspiratory assist during NAVA and PAV+ , and (future) indices for monitoring of patient effort. Last, differences with automated modes are mentioned.

The members of the LUNG SAFE Investigators and the ESICM Trials Group were provided in such a way that they could not be indexed as collaborators on PubMed. The publisher apologizes for this error.

During volume-controlled ventilation, part of the volume delivered is compressed into the circuit. To correct for this phenomenon, modern ventilators use compensation algorithms. Humidity and temperature also influence the delivered volume. In a bench study at a research laboratory in a university hospital, we compared nine ICU ventilators equipped with compensation algorithms, one with a proximal pneumotachograph and one without compensation. Each ventilator was evaluated under normal, obstructive, and restrictive conditions of respiratory mechanics. For each condition, three tidal volumes (V T) were set (300, 500, and 800 ml), with and without an inspiratory pause. The insufflated volume and the volume delivered at the Y-piece were measured independently, without a humidification device, under ambient temperature and pressure and dry gas conditions. We computed the actually delivered V T to the lung under body temperature and pressure and saturated water vapour conditions (BTPS). For target V T values of 300, 500, and 800 ml, actually delivered V T under BTPS conditions ranged from 261 to 396 ml (−13 to +32%), from 437 to 622 ml (−13 to +24%), and from 681 to 953 ml (−15 to +19%), respectively (p

To evaluate the impact of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) algorithms available on intensive care unit ventilators on the incidence of patient-ventilator asynchrony in patients receiving NIV for acute respiratory failure. Prospective multicenter randomized cross-over study. Intensive care units in three university hospitals. Patients consecutively admitted to the ICU and treated by NIV with an ICU ventilator were included. Airway pressure, flow and surface diaphragmatic electromyography were recorded continuously during two 30-min periods, with the NIV (NIV+) or without the NIV algorithm (NIV0). Asynchrony events, the asynchrony index (AI) and a specific asynchrony index influenced by leaks (AIleaks) were determined from tracing analysis. Sixty-five patients were included. With and without the NIV algorithm, respectively, auto-triggering was present in 14 (22%) and 10 (15%) patients, ineffective breaths in 15 (23%) and 5 (8%) (p = 0.004), late cycling in 11 (17%) and 5 (8%) (p = 0.003), premature cycling in 22 (34%) and 21 (32%), and double triggering in 3 (5%) and 6 (9%). The mean number of asynchronies influenced by leaks was significantly reduced by the NIV algorithm (p