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

Jonne Doorduin, Christer A. Sinderby, Jennifer Beck, Johannes G. van der Hoeven, Leo M.A. Heunks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Introduction: 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-PSVVision), 2) PSV with intensive care unit (ICU) ventilator (NIV-PSVServo-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-PSVVision (24 (IQR 15 to 30) %) and NIV-PSVServo-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 (r2 = 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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number550
JournalCritical Care
Volume18
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2014

Cite this

@article{60823080168341e1a0cd073e56a125f4,
title = "Automated patient-ventilator interaction analysis during neurally adjusted non-invasive ventilation and pressure support ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease",
abstract = "Introduction: 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-PSVVision), 2) PSV with intensive care unit (ICU) ventilator (NIV-PSVServo-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-PSVVision (24 (IQR 15 to 30) {\%}) and NIV-PSVServo-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 (r2 = 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.",
author = "Jonne Doorduin and Sinderby, {Christer A.} and Jennifer Beck and {van der Hoeven}, {Johannes G.} and Heunks, {Leo M.A.}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1186/s13054-014-0550-9",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
journal = "Critical Care",
issn = "1466-609X",
publisher = "Springer Science + Business Media",
number = "5",

}

Automated patient-ventilator interaction analysis during neurally adjusted non-invasive ventilation and pressure support ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. / Doorduin, Jonne; Sinderby, Christer A.; Beck, Jennifer; van der Hoeven, Johannes G.; Heunks, Leo M.A.

In: Critical Care, Vol. 18, No. 5, 550, 01.01.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Automated patient-ventilator interaction analysis during neurally adjusted non-invasive ventilation and pressure support ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

AU - Doorduin, Jonne

AU - Sinderby, Christer A.

AU - Beck, Jennifer

AU - van der Hoeven, Johannes G.

AU - Heunks, Leo M.A.

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Introduction: 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-PSVVision), 2) PSV with intensive care unit (ICU) ventilator (NIV-PSVServo-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-PSVVision (24 (IQR 15 to 30) %) and NIV-PSVServo-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 (r2 = 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.

AB - Introduction: 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-PSVVision), 2) PSV with intensive care unit (ICU) ventilator (NIV-PSVServo-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-PSVVision (24 (IQR 15 to 30) %) and NIV-PSVServo-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 (r2 = 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84988694012&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13054-014-0550-9

DO - 10.1186/s13054-014-0550-9

M3 - Article

VL - 18

JO - Critical Care

JF - Critical Care

SN - 1466-609X

IS - 5

M1 - 550

ER -