Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2018 | Research | Ausgabe 1/2018 Open Access

Annals of Intensive Care 1/2018

Proportional modes versus pressure support ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zeitschrift:
Annals of Intensive Care > Ausgabe 1/2018
Autoren:
Jun Kataoka, Akira Kuriyama, Yasuhiro Norisue, Shigeki Fujitani
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13613-018-0470-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Abbreviations
PSV
pressure support ventilation
PAV
proportional assist ventilation
NAVA
neurally adjusted ventilatory assist
RCT
randomized controlled trial
AI
asynchrony index
EAdi
electrical activity of the diaphragm
RR
risk ratio
CI
confidence interval
WMD
weighted mean difference

Introduction

The separation of patient from the mechanical ventilator can take long time, and it is an important phase during the patient ventilator assistance [ 1]. Pressure support ventilation (PSV) is the most commonly used mode for the liberation process [ 2, 3], but presents several limitations. First, the optimal pressure support level for weaning varied among patients. Both over- and under-assistance may cause a diaphragm weakness [ 4]. Critical illness-associated diaphragm weakness is often associated with difficult weaning and prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation [ 57]. Second, PSV can often cause patient–ventilator asynchrony due to the mismatch between pressure support and the patient’s inspiratory demand or effort level [ 8]. A recent study showed that the presence of asynchrony was associated with prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation and led to increased mortality [ 9].
Proportional assist ventilation (PAV) [ 10] and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) [ 11] are designed to improve patient–ventilator interaction [ 12]. Both modes are designed to adjust inspiratory pressure proportionally to the patient’s inspiratory demand and are known as proportional modes [ 13]. PAV+ (Puritan Bennett 840/980 ventilator; Covidien, Boulder, Colorado, USA) automatically measures the elastance and resistance of the respiratory system during spontaneous breathing and delivers the adequate pressure needed to meet the flow and volume demand that are instantaneously measured on a breath-to-breath basis [ 14]. On the other hand, NAVA (Maquet Critical Care SA, S.lna, Sweden) is controlled by the change of electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) which is obtained by the placement of a nasogastric tube equipped with EMG electrodes [ 11]. Previous studies have demonstrated that both modes improve the patient–ventilator interaction [ 15]. Although proportional modes may be efficient as a weaning mode, they have not been examined on a large-scale randomized controlled trial compared to PSV as a weaning mode.
Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine whether proportional modes improve patient–ventilator interaction and whether they have an impact on the weaning success and length of mechanical ventilation in mechanically ventilated patients, in comparison with PSV.

Methods

Our study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42017059791) on March 20, 2017. We complied with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement for reporting this systematic review [ 16].

Eligibility criteria

We included both parallel-group and crossover randomized studies that examined the efficacy of proportional modes (PAV and NAVA) in comparison with PSV in mechanically ventilated adults. We excluded studies that did not examined asynchrony index [ 17], pediatric and noninvasive ventilation studies, as well as parallel-group studies that applied proportional modes only for spontaneous breathing trial.

Database search

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible articles. Our search strategy was listed in Additional file 1: Table S1. Two authors (JK and AK) independently screened articles retrieved by the search and selected eligible articles. We also inspected the references of included studies for potentially relevant studies. In case of disagreement, the same authors consulted with a third author (YN). We placed no restrictions regarding publication status and languages. Our last search update was May 13, 2018.

Data extraction and bias assessment

Two authors (JK and AK) independently extracted the following data: (1) participants (age and proportion of females); (2) characteristics (country, type of ICUs, inclusion criteria of participants, parallel or crossover studies); (3) interventions (NAVA or PAV), and (4) outcomes of our interest listed below.
The same authors also independently assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool [ 18]. Disagreement was resolved through discussion.

Outcomes

Our primary outcomes were (1) asynchrony index (AI), (2) weaning failure, and (3) duration of mechanical ventilation. The primary outcomes were analyzed for overall proportional modes of ventilation including NAVA and PAV together. AI was described in two different ways in the included studies. AI was either defined as a continuous outcome or as the number of patients with AI > 10%. We thus presented both definitions in our study. Weaning failure was generally defined as the need for switching to a controlled mode or reintubation after extubation. However, there is a significant heterogeneity in the definition of weaning failure among the studies. We thus included only studies with the definition of weaning failure of “extubation failure leading to reintubation.” Our secondary outcomes included (1) weaning time from randomization, (2) switching again to a controlled mode, (3) length of stay in ICU, (4) length of stay in hospital, (5) ICU mortality, (6) in-hospital mortality, (7) patients who needed tracheostomy, (8) incidence of reintubation, and (9) those who required noninvasive ventilation after extubation.

Statistical analysis

We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes and presented the results with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Since many of the included studies reported continuous outcomes in medians and interquartile ranges, we converted these values to means and standard deviations using a method proposed by Wan et al. [ 19]. We pooled the data using a random-effects model [ 20]. There is no established method of pooling crossover studies. However, the pooled outcome of crossover studies is generally conservative than that of parallel studies. Although we acknowledge the unit-of-analysis error (double- or triple-counting studies and participants), we pooled all crossover studies as if they were parallel studies [ 18]. There is one three-way crossover study [ 15], and we evaluated the impact of this study by pooling only one comparison at a time in a sensitivity analysis. We assessed statistical heterogeneity with I 2 and Q statistics [ 21]. We did not evaluate small study effect or publication bias according to the Cochrane methodology, because the number of studies included for each analysis was less than ten [ 18].
We conducted subgroup analysis by the type of intervention, namely NAVA and PAV, and examined the difference of outcomes between these subgroups with test of interaction. We also conducted sensitivity analysis, by excluding unclear or high risk of bias in sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of assessors, incomplete outcome reporting, and selective outcome reporting to assess the robustness of our primary outcome analyses.
We performed all analyses with Stata SE, version 15.0 (Stata, College Station, TX, USA). A threshold for statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 (two-tailed).

Results

Overview of included studies

The search extracted 512 articles. After application of our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we considered seven parallel-group [ 2228] and eight crossover [ 15, 2935] studies that compared proportional modes with PSV in mechanically ventilated adults (Fig.  1) (Additional file 2: Table S2). We contacted one study author to confirm that the participants were randomized, and therefore included this study in our analysis [ 33]. A total of 668 mechanical ventilated adult patients were included in the analysis (Table  1). The median or mean age of the participants ranged from 55.4 to 77.9 years, and 34.1% were women. Four studies evaluated PAV ( n = 367) [ 2224, 28], ten studies evaluated NAVA ( n = 285) [ 2527, 2935], and one crossover study evaluated both modes ( n = 16) [ 15]. We included the whole literature on proportional assist ventilation. However, we could not find studies that met our inclusion criteria other than examined PAV+. One parallel study recruited multicenter ICUs [ 25], six studies recruited medical ICUs [ 23, 27, 3133, 35], one crossover study recruited surgical ICU [ 34], and seven studies recruited mixed (medical and surgical) ICUs [ 15, 22, 24, 26, 2830]. All studies were published in full texts and in English.
Table 1
Characteristics of included studies
Study/year
Country
Study type
Type of ICU/inclusion criteria
Sample size (% female)
Mean or median age
Type of experiment
Intervention
Control
Colombo/2008 [ 29]
Italy
Crossover
Mixed ICU/patients on partial ventilator support
14 (14.2)
55.4
Physiological/20 min
NAVA (support level was to obtain similar peak inspiratory pressure to the PSV)
PSV (support level was to obtain VT of 6–8 ml/kg PBW)
Xirouchaki/2008 [ 22]
Greece
Parallel
Mixed ICU/patients on CMV > 36 h and awaiting weaning
208 (33.7)
59–63
Clinical/Weaning (48 h) (weaning failure was defined as the need for switching to a controlled mode or reintubation after extubation)
PAV+
PSV
Spahija/2010 [ 30]
Canada
Crossover
Mixed ICU/patients on MV for ARF and ready to be wean
14 (57.1)
69.4
Physiological/10 min
NAVA (support level was to obtain similar peak inspiratory pressure to the PSV)
PSV (support level was to obtain VT of 6–8 ml/kg PBW)
Patroniti/2012 [ 31]
Italy
Crossover
Medical ICU/patients on MV for ARF
15 (40)
67.9
Physiological/10 min
NAVA (support level was 1 cm H 2O/μV)
PSV (support level was 8 cm H 2O)
Elganady/2014 [ 23]
Egypt
Parallel
Medical ICU/patients with acute exacerbation of COPD and on MV > 24 h
60 (18.3)
59.7
Clinical/weaning (weaning failure was defined as the need for switching to a controlled mode or reintubation after extubation)
PAV+
PSV
Doorduin/2015 [ 32]
Netherlands
Crossover
Medical ICU/patients on MV for ARDS
12 (16.7)
64.1
Physiological/30 min
NAVA (support level was to obtain similar peak inspiratory pressure to the PSV)
PSV (support level was to obtain VT of 6 ml/kg PBW)
Schmidt/2015 [ 15]
France
Crossover
Mixed ICU/patients on MV > 48 h for ARF and awaiting weaning
16 (37.5)
67
Physiological/30 min
PAV+/NAVA (support level was to obtain VT of 6–8 ml/kg PBW)
PSV (support level was to obtain VT of 6–8 ml/kg PBW)
Bosma/2016 [ 24]
Canada
Parallel
Mixed ICU/MV > 36 h, SBT failure
50 (50)
64.8
Clinical/weaning (weaning failure was not defined)
PAV+
PSV
Carteaux/2016 [ 33]
France
Crossover
Medical ICU/patients on MV and recovering from ARF
11 (54.5)
69.8
Physiological/5–10 min
NAVA (support level was 0.5 cm H 2O/μV)
PSV (support level was 10 cm H 2O)
Demoule/2016 [ 25]
France
Parallel
Multicenter (medical/mixed/surgical)/patients who required endotracheal MV > 24 h for ARF and awaiting weaning
128 (32.8)
64–66
Clinical/Weaning (14 days) (weaning failure was defined as the need for switching to a controlled mode)
NAVA
PSV
Di Mussi/2016 [ 26]
Italy
Parallel
Mixed ICU/patients requiring CMV > 72 h for ARF
25 (44)
68.2
Physiological/48 h
NAVA (support level was titrated according to an initial steep increase P AO and VT)
PSV (support level was to obtain VT of 5–8 ml/kg PBW)
Kuo/2016 [ 27]
Taiwan
Parallel
Medical ICU/patients aged ≥ 45 years, and received MV > 21 days for COPD exacerbation
33 (27.3)
77.9
Clinical/weaning (weaning failure was not defined)
NAVA
PSV
Costa/2017 [ 34]
Italy
Crossover
Surgical ICU/patients on partial ventilator support < 72 h
13 (23.1)
58.9
Physiological/25 min
NAVA (support level was to obtain similar VT and EAdi to the PSV)
PSV (support level was to obtain VT of 6–8 ml/kg PBW)
Ferreira/2017 [ 35]
Brazil
Crossover
Medical ICU/patients on MV > 48 h and considered to be ready for SBT
20 (35)
60
Physiological/30 min (SBT)
NAVA (support level was to obtain similar peak inspiratory pressure to the PSV)
PSV (support level was 5 cm H 2O)
Botha/2018 [ 28]
Australia
Parallel
Mixed ICU/patients on CMV and suitable for > 48 h of weaning on a spontaneous mode
49 (40.8)
63
Clinical/weaning (weaning failure was defined as the need for reintubation after extubation)
PAV+
PSV
ICU intensive care unit, PAV proportional assist ventilation, NAVA neurally adjusted ventilatory assist, PSV pressure support ventilation, MV mechanical ventilation, COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ARF acute respiratory failure, ARDS acute respiratory distress syndrome, SBT spontaneous breathing trial, NR not reported, CMV controlled mechanical ventilation, SBT spontaneous breathing trial, VT tidal volume, EAdi diaphragm electrical activity

Risk of bias

Sequence generation and allocation concealment were adequately conducted in ten (67%) [ 15, 2225, 28, 29, 3335] and five studies (33%) [ 23, 25, 28, 34, 35], respectively (Table  2). Blinding of participants and investigators was impossible due to the nature of study design, but blinding of outcome assessors was deemed appropriate in two studies (13%) [ 25, 35]. Nine studies (60%) were free of the risk of incomplete outcome reporting [ 22, 24, 2729, 31, 3335]. Since many of the included studies were crossover studies that failed to report that baseline data between groups, only four studies (27%) were considered at low risk of other bias [ 2225].
Table 2
Risk of bias in included studies
Study/year
Sequence generation
Allocation concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel
Blinding of outcome assessors
Incomplete outcome data
Selective outcome reporting
Other source of bias
Colombo/2008
Low
Unclear
High
Unclear
Low
Unclear
Unclear
Xirouchaki/2008
Low
Unclear
High
Unclear
Low
Low
Low
Spahija/2010
Unclear
Unclear
High
Unclear
Unclear
Unclear
Unclear
Patroniti/2012
Unclear
Unclear
High
Unclear
Low
Unclear
Unclear
Elganady/2014
Low
Low
High
Unclear
Unclear
Low
Low
Doorduin/2015
Unclear
Unclear
High
Unclear
Unclear
Low
Unclear
Schmidt/2015
Low
Unclear
High
Unclear
Unclear
Low
Unclear
Bosma/2016
Low
Unclear
High
Unclear
Low
Unclear
Low
Carteaux/2016
Low
Unclear
High
High
Low
Low
Unclear
Demoule/2016
Low
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Low
Di mussi/2016
Unclear
Unclear
High
Unclear
High
High
Unclear
Kuo/2016
Unclear
Unclear
High
Unclear
Low
Low
Unclear
Costa/2017
Low
Low
High
Unclear
Low
Low
Unclear
Ferreira/2017
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
Low
Unclear
Botha/2018
Low
Low
High
High
Low
Low
High

Primary outcomes

Asynchrony index

Although the use of proportional modes was not associated with a reduction in AI (WMD − 1.43; 95% CI − 3.11 to 0.25; p = 0.096; df = 7; I 2 = 82.4%) (Fig.  2a), the use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in patients with AI > 10% (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.04–0.58; p = 0.006; df = 6; I 2 = 61.2%) (Fig.  2b), compared with PSV. In the subgroup analysis, the use of NAVA was associated with a reduction in AI. There was a significant heterogeneity among studies for AI, especially with NAVA.

Weaning failure

Three studies were included in the analysis, and all of them compared PAV and PSV [ 22, 23, 28]. The definition of weaning failure in each study is shown in Table  1. The use of proportional modes was associated with reduction in weaning failure (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.26–0.75; p = 0.003; df = 2; I 2 = 0.0%) (Fig.  3), compared with PSV.

Duration of mechanical ventilation

Five studies reported duration of mechanical ventilation (three and two studies evaluated PAV and NAVA, respectively) [ 2225, 27]. The use of proportional modes was associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD − 1.78 days; 95% CI − 3.24 to − 0.32; p = 0.017; df = 4; I 2 = 32.5%) in comparison with PSV (Fig.  4). In the subgroup analysis, the use of PAV was associated with a reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation in comparison with PSV, while there was no such association for NAVA.

Secondary outcomes

Compared with PSV, proportional modes did not exhibit any association with reduction in weaning time from randomization, switching again to a controlled mode, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, hospital mortality or tracheostomy, compared with use of PSV (Table  3). However, the use of proportional modes was significantly associated with reduced incidence of reintubation (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.17–0.90; p = 0.027; df = 2; I 2 = 0.0%) and the use of noninvasive ventilation after extubation (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.47–0.89; p = 0.007; df = 1; I 2 = 0.0%) in comparison with PSV (Table  3).
Table 3
Results of secondary outcomes
Outcomes
No. of trials (PAV/NAVA)
Total sample size
Summary estimates (95% confidence intervals)
Q
df
I 2 (%)
Weaning time from randomization (day)
PAV 2 [ 24, 28]
NAVA 1 [ 25]
220
WMD − 1.21 (− 4.32, 1.91)
3.66
2
45.3
Switching again to a controlled mode
PAV 1 [ 24]
NAVA 1 [ 25]
168
RR 1.00 (0.77, 1.31)
0.30
1
0.0
Length of ICU (day)
PAV 4 [ 2224, 28]
NAVA 2 [ 25, 27]
528
WMD − 1.41 (− 3.90, 1.09)
12.43
5
59.8
Length of hospital stay (day)
PAV 3 [ 23, 24, 28]
NAVA 2 [ 25, 27]
320
WMD − 0.26 (− 3.90, 3.37)
7.73
4
48.2
Tracheostomy
PAV 2 [ 24, 28]
98
RR 0.65 (0.31, 1.37)
0.09
1
0.0
Reintubation
PAV 3 [ 23, 24, 28]
158
RR 0.39 (0.17, 0.90)
0.39
2
0.0
Use of NIV after extubation
PAV 1 [ 24]
NAVA 1 [ 25]
178
RR 0.64 (0.47, 0.89)
0.13
1
0.0
RR risk ratio, WMD weighted mean difference, ICU intensive care unit, PAV proportional assisted ventilation, NAVA neurally adjusted ventilatory assist

Subgroup analysis

We conducted subgroup analyses on the primary outcomes (Table  4). There was no significant difference between NAVA and PAV groups in any of the primary outcomes.
Table 4
Subgroup analyses of primary outcomes
Outcomes
No. of trials (PAV/NAVA)
Total sample size
Summary estimates (95% confidence intervals)
Heterogeneity
p value (test for subgroup difference)
Q
df
I 2 (%)
AI as continuous outcome
PAV, 1
32
WMD − 0.45 (− 1.00, 0.10)
0.00
0
0.06
NAVA, 7
268
WMD − 3.06 (− 5.74, − 0.39)
35.53
6
83.1
 
AI > 10%
PAV, 2
110
RR 0.06 (0.01, 0.46)
0.00
1
0.0
0.57
NAVA, 5
151
RR 0.20 (0.05, 0.92)
15.47
4
59.5
 
Weaning failure
PAV, 3
317
RR 0.44 (0.26, 0.75)
0.60
2
0.0
NA
Duration of mechanical ventilation
PAV, 3
318
WMD − 2.25 (− 3.86, − 0.65)
3.13
2
36.5
0.16
NAVA, 2
161
WMD − 0.03 (− 2.66, 2.61)
0.03
1
0.0
 
AI asynchrony index, RR risk ratio, WMD weighed mean difference

Sensitivity analysis

We conducted sensitivity analyses on the primary outcomes (Additional file 3: Table S3). Although some sensitivity analysis was impossible for secondary outcomes due to the lack of low-risk studies, other available sensitivity analyses were mostly consistent with the primary outcome analysis. Pooling only one comparison from a three-way crossover study for AI yielded finding similar to the primary analysis.

Discussion

The present study provides the following findings: (1) proportional modes reduced the incidence with AI > 10%, and (2) the use of proportional modes, especially PAV, was associated with a reduction in weaning failure and duration of mechanical ventilation, compared with PSV. Sensitivity analyses corroborated the robustness of our findings, and despite the small sample size within each of the included studies, our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that proportional modes may have some merits for patients undergoing liberation from mechanical ventilation, compared with PSV.
Our study showed that proportional modes significantly reduced the incidence with AI > 10%, compared to PSV. The significant reduction of the incidence with AI > 10% is mainly attributed to the existence of neuromuscular coupling in proportional modes, allowing the patient to have control over the airway pressure provided by the ventilator according to the patient’s inspiratory demand. Over-assistance with PSV generated an important prevalence of ineffective effort. For instance, Schmidt et al. showed that PAV and NAVA improved patient–ventilator interaction by preventing over-distention and ineffective effort in their preliminary crossover study [ 15]. Although several patient–ventilator asynchronies classifications exist [ 36], we were unable to identify which classifications of asynchrony actually improved with each mode because AI was solely utilized as an outcome. PAV and NAVA may have different profiles in preventing asynchrony such as double triggering which was observed more frequently in NAVA than in both PAV and PSV [ 15]. On the other hand, inspiratory trigger delay was observed less frequently in NAVA than in both PAV and PSV [ 15].
Remarkably, our study showed that the use of proportional modes, especially PAV, was significantly associated with reduced weaning failure and duration of mechanical ventilation. The possible explanations for the finding are as follows. First, the patients with PSV may have been given more frequent or higher doses of analgesics or sedatives due to higher incidence of asynchrony. Previous studies showed that proportional modes could not only improve sleep quality [ 37] but also decrease the dose of sedative medication [ 24] because of better patient–ventilator interaction. Maintaining light levels of sedation is shown to be associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation [ 38, 39]. Second, asynchronies such as ineffective effort and double triggering may have unfavorable effects on patients’ respiratory systems, which lead to longer duration of mechanical ventilation on PSV. Third, proportional modes may reduce risk of over- and under-assistance. PAV+ monitors the work of breathing and inspiratory respiratory effort of the patients [ 40], while NAVA monitors the electrical activity of diaphragm and thus may minimize diaphragmatic atrophy due to inactivity. In fact, over-assistance is a common scenario with PSV and leads to diaphragm atrophy, explaining the increased duration of mechanical ventilation [ 41, 42]. However, these assumptions have been somewhat controversial. Two multicenter RCTs are presently under way (NCT02447692, NCT01730794), and their results will presumably become available in the near future. Our meta-analysis supports, while awaiting the results of the RCTs, that it is reasonable to use proportional modes in the liberation process for mechanically ventilated adults.
Finally, we determined that proportional modes were associated with less frequent application of post-extubation noninvasive ventilation and reintubation. Each study did not include predefined criteria for post-extubation noninvasive ventilation and reintubation. Due to a significant heterogeneity among studies and an insufficient number of studies, further investigation seems warranted to better understand the impact of proportional modes on secondary outcomes.
Our study has several strengths. First, to the best of our knowledge, this represents the first systematic review and meta-analysis that examines the efficacy of proportional modes as weaning modes. A comprehensive search was conducted, and fifteen studies were included. This study could reveal the efficacy of proportional modes as weaning modes, compared to PSV. Second, this systematic review examined a broad array of outcomes and hence could propose future pertinent proportional modes investigations to be conducted not only on weaning but also post-extubation outcomes, namely the utilization of noninvasive ventilation and reintubation. Third, subgroup analysis (PAV or NAVA) could be conducted due to the large number of studies.
Our study also has some limitations. First, both PAV and NAVA were concurrently analyzed since both have similar objectives. However, PAV and NAVA have some differences and thus are not completely the same. For instance, PAV delivers the support proportionally to lung mechanics, while NAVA cannot [ 43]. Therefore, there may be some differences in outcomes between PAV and NAVA in patients with abnormal respiratory system mechanics. Although a comparison of PAV and NAVA is thus clinically relevant, we did not conduct a network meta-analysis to compare PAV and NAVA for the following reasons: (1) the number of studies included in each analysis was limited; (2) a network meta-analysis is not recommended when there were presumably clinical heterogeneity across studies; and (3) the subgroup analysis already found no statistical difference between the two subgroups. Second, each included study in this systematic review utilized the differential weaning protocol which may possibly affect the duration of mechanical ventilation. Third, there was a significant heterogeneity among studies for AI, especially with NAVA, but an insufficient number of studies precluded the analysis to investigate the source of this heterogeneity. Fourth, the risk of bias in many of the included studies was deemed high. However, although it was impossible to perform some sensitivity analyses due to the lack of studies at low risk of certain bias, most available sensitivity analyses produced findings similar to the primary analysis, which further made the analysis more rigorous. Fifth, many of the included studies were crossover studies. They have a theoretical risk that the efficacy of the first intervention may be overestimated or underestimated in comparison with that of the second one [ 44], because the patients were supposed to gradually improve during the weaning period considered in the included studies.

Conclusion

The use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in the incidence with AI > 10%, weaning failure and duration of mechanical ventilation, compared with PSV. However, reduced weaning failure and duration of mechanical ventilation were found with only PAV. Due to a significant heterogeneity among studies and an insufficient number of studies, further investigation seems warranted to better understand the impact of proportional modes.

Authors’ contributions

JK and AK conceived the study and developed the study design. JK and AK performed the study search, extracted data, carried out statistical analysis, drafted the manuscript, and revised the manuscript. YN and SF improved the idea and design and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor Dimitris Georgopoulos for his helpful advice on the discussion. We thank Dr. Brandon Lohman for his medical English proofreading.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Zusatzmaterial
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Annals of Intensive Care 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet AINS

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update AINS und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise