NAVA enhances tidal volume and diaphragmatic electro-myographic activity matching: a Range90 analysis of supply and demand.

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) is a ventilation assist mode that delivers pressure in proportionality to electrical activity of the diaphragm (Eadi). Compared to pressure support ventilation (PS), it improves patient-ventilator synchrony and should allow a better expression of patient's intrinsic respiratory variability. We hypothesize that NAVA provides better matching in ventilator tidal volume (Vt) to patients inspiratory demand. 22 patients with acute respiratory failure, ventilated with PS were included in the study. A comparative study was carried out between PS and NAVA, with NAVA gain ensuring the same peak airway pressure as PS. Robust coefficients of variation (CVR) for Eadi and Vt were compared for each mode. The integral of Eadi (ʃEadi) was used to represent patient's inspiratory demand. To evaluate tidal volume and patient's demand matching, Range90 = 5-95 % range of the Vt/ʃEadi ratio was calculated, to normalize and compare differences in demand within and between patients and modes. In this study, peak Eadi and ʃEadi are correlated with median correlation of coefficients, R > 0.95. Median ʃEadi, Vt, neural inspiratory time (Ti_ ( Neural )), inspiratory time (Ti) and peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) were similar in PS and NAVA. However, it was found that individual patients have higher or smaller ʃEadi, Vt, Ti_ ( Neural ), Ti and PIP. CVR analysis showed greater Vt variability for NAVA (p < 0.005). Range90 was lower for NAVA than PS for 21 of 22 patients. NAVA provided better matching of Vt to ʃEadi for 21 of 22 patients, and provided greater variability Vt. These results were achieved regardless of differences in ventilatory demand (Eadi) between patients and modes.

An analysis of protocols and publications suggested that most discontinuations of clinical trials were not based on preplanned interim analyses or stopping rules.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency of interim analyses, stopping rules, and data safety and monitoring boards (DSMBs) in protocols of randomized controlled trials (RCTs); to examine these features across different reasons for trial discontinuation; and to identify discrepancies in reporting between protocols and publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used data from a cohort of RCT protocols approved between 2000 and 2003 by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. RESULTS: Of 894 RCT protocols, 289 prespecified interim analyses (32.3%), 153 stopping rules (17.1%), and 257 DSMBs (28.7%). Overall, 249 of 894 RCTs (27.9%) were prematurely discontinued; mostly due to reasons such as poor recruitment, administrative reasons, or unexpected harm. Forty-six of 249 RCTs (18.4%) were discontinued due to early benefit or futility; of those, 37 (80.4%) were stopped outside a formal interim analysis or stopping rule. Of 515 published RCTs, there were discrepancies between protocols and publications for interim analyses (21.1%), stopping rules (14.4%), and DSMBs (19.6%). CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of RCT protocols did not consider interim analyses, stopping rules, or DSMBs. Most RCTs discontinued for early benefit or futility were stopped without a prespecified mechanism. When assessing trial manuscripts, journals should require access to the protocol.