Objective To describe the incidence of patient-ventilator asynchrony and different types of asynchrony in preterm infants treated with non-synchronised nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (nIPPV).
Design An observational study was conducted including preterm infants born with a gestational age (GA) less than 32 weeks treated with non-synchronised nIPPV. During 1 hour, spontaneous breathing was measured with transcutaneous electromyography of the diaphragm simultaneous with ventilator inflations. An asynchrony index (AI), a percentage of asynchronous breaths, was calculated and the incidence of different types of inspiratory and expiratory asynchrony were reported.
Results Twenty-one preterm infants with a mean GA of 26.0±1.2 weeks were included in the study. The mean inspiratory AI was 68.3%±4.7% and the mean expiratory AI was 67.1%±7.3%. Out of 5044 comparisons of spontaneous inspirations and mechanical inflations, 45.3% of the mechanical inflations occurred late, 23.3% of the mechanical inflations were early and 31.4% of the mechanical inflation were synchronous. 40.3% of 5127 expiratory comparisons showed an early termination of ventilator inflations, 26.7% of the mechanical inflations terminated late and 33.0% mechanical inflations terminated in synchrony with a spontaneous expiration. In addition, 1380 spontaneous breaths were unsupported and 611 extra mechanical inflations were delivered.
Conclusion Non-synchronised nIPPV results in high patient-ventilator asynchrony in preterm infants during both the inspiratory and expiratory phase of the breathing cycle. New synchronisation techniques are urgently needed and should address both inspiratory and expiratory asynchrony.
- intensive care
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors CGdeW, FHdJ, AHvK, GJH contributed to the conception and study design. All authors contributed to the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; drafting the manuscript for important intellectual content and decision to submit the paper for publication.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Ethics approval Medical Ethics Committee AMC Amsterdam.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.