Trial reportIntensive care medicine2020
Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in acute respiratory failure: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Sample size estimation in clinical trials using ventilator-free days as the primary outcome: a systematic review.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist vs. Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in Adults and Children With Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist as a weaning mode for adults with invasive mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Pooled it
- Effects of external diaphragmatic pacing with neurally adjusted ventilatory assist on diaphragm function in AECOPD patients.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Effect of aggressive vs conservative screening and confirmatory test on time to extubation among patients at low or intermediate risk: a randomized clinical trial.Intensive care medicine · 2024Trial
- ARDS management beyond the guidelines: a practical physiology-based approach to individualized care.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure or Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Computational tools for personalizing treatment of acute respiratory failure, from machine learning to digital twins: a narrative review.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in critical care patients with and without obesity: a prospective randomized crossover study.Annals of intensive care · 2025Article
- The construction of a risk prediction model for the impact of tidal volume in postoperative patients with intracerebral hemorrhage using neural-assisted mechanical ventilation based on columnar graph.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Highlights from the Respiratory Failure and Mechanical Ventilation Conference 2024.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2024Article
- Non-invasive neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NIV-NAVA) in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU): an Australian NICU experience.BMC pediatrics · 2024Article
- Academic Output of Fellows of the American Association for Respiratory Care.Respiratory care · 2024Article
- Pendelluft in hypoxemic patients resuming spontaneous breathing: proportional modes versus pressure support ventilation.Annals of intensive care · 2023Article
- Highlights from the Respiratory Failure and Mechanical Ventilation 2022 Conference.ERJ open research · 2023Article
- Comparison of clinical outcomes in critical patients undergoing different mechanical ventilation modes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- To Wean or Not to Wean: A Practical Patient Focused Guide to Ventilator Weaning.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2022Review
- The physiological underpinnings of life-saving respiratory support.Intensive care medicine · 2022Review
- Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist in Acute Respiratory Failure-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors at 15 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe hypothesized that neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) compared to conventional lung-protective mechanical ventilation (MV) decreases duration of MV and mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF).
methodsWe carried out a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in patients with ARF from several etiologies. Intubated patients ventilated for ≤ 5 days expected to require MV for ≥ 72 h and able to breathe spontaneously were eligible for enrollment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned based on balanced treatment assignments with a computerized randomization allocation sequence to two ventilatory strategies: (1) lung-protective MV (control group), and (2) lung-protective MV with NAVA (NAVA group). Allocation concealment was maintained at all sites during the trial. Primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days. Secondary outcome was all-cause hospital mortality. All analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle.
resultsBetween March 2014 and October 2019, we enrolled 306 patients and randomly assigned 153 patients to the NAVA group and 153 to the control group. Median VFDs were higher in the NAVA than in the control group (22 vs. 18 days; between-group difference 4 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 8 days; p = 0.016). At hospital discharge, 39 (25.5%) patients in the NAVA group and 47 (30.7%) patients in the control group had died (between-group difference - 5.2%, 95% CI - 15.2 to 4.8, p = 0.31). Other clinical, physiological or safety outcomes did not differ significantly between the trial groups.
conclusionNAVA decreased duration of MV although it did not improve survival in ventilated patients with ARF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.