Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27502948›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of pediatrics2016

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) in preterm newborn infants with respiratory distress syndrome-a randomized controlled trial.

Merja Kallio, Ulla Koskela, Outi Peltoniemi, Tero Kontiokari, Tytti Pokka, Maria Suo-Palosaari, Timo Saarela

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of pediatrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Feasibility of lung ultrasound-guided positive end-expiratory pressure adjustment in newborns.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  11. Perspectives of medical staff on respiratory management with neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in preterm infants.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Observational
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Merja KallioPEDEGO Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland. merja.kallio@oulu.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0799-344X
Ulla KoskelaPEDEGO Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Outi PeltoniemiPEDEGO Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Tero KontiokariPEDEGO Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Tytti PokkaPEDEGO Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Maria Suo-PalosaariMedical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Timo SaarelaPEDEGO Research Unit, Medical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Oulu University Hospital · FIUniversity of Oulu · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledNeurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) improves patient-ventilator synchrony during invasive ventilation and leads to lower peak inspiratory pressures (PIP) and oxygen requirements. The aim of this trial was to compare NAVA with current standard ventilation in preterm infants in terms of the duration of invasive ventilation. Sixty infants born between 28 + 0 and 36 + 6 weeks of gestation and requiring invasive ventilation due to neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) were randomized to conventional ventilation or NAVA. The median durations of invasive ventilation were 34.7 h (quartiles 22.8-67.9 h) and 25.8 h (15.6-52.1 h) in the NAVA and control groups, respectively (P = 0.21). Lower PIPs were achieved with NAVA (P = 0.02), and the rapid reduction in PIP after changing the ventilation mode to NAVA made following the predetermined extubation criteria challenging. The other ventilatory and vital parameters did not differ between the groups. Frequent apneas and persistent pulmonary hypertension were conditions that limited the use of NAVA in 17 % of the patients randomized to the NAVA group. Similar cumulative doses of opiates were used in both groups (P = 0.71).

conclusionsNAVA was a safe and feasible ventilation mode for the majority of preterm infants suffering from RDS, but the traditional extubation criteria were not clinically applicable during NAVA. WHAT IS KNOWN: • NAVA improves patient-ventilator synchrony during invasive ventilation. • Lower airway pressures and oxygen requirements are achieved with NAVA during invasive ventilation in preterm infants by comparison with conventional ventilation. What is new: • Infants suffering from PPHN did not tolerate NAVA in the acute phase of their illness. • The traditional extubation criteria relying on inspiratory pressures and spontaneous breathing efforts were not clinically applicable during NAVA.

Indexed as

Infant, PrematureAcute DiseaseAirway ExtubationAnalgesicsFemaleGestational AgeHumansHypnotics and SedativesInfant, NewbornIntensive Care, NeonatalInteractive Ventilatory SupportLinear ModelsMaleOxygenRespiratory Distress Syndrome, NewbornSingle-Blind MethodAnalgesicsHypnotics and SedativesOxygenEdi signalInvasive ventilationNAVANeonatePreterm infantRespiratory distress

Identifiers

PMID27502948
OpenAlexW2508331570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.