Whether the use of adaptive support ventilation (ASV) during noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is as effective as pressure support ventilation (PSV) remains unknown. In this exploratory study, we compared the delivery of NIV with PSV versus ASV. We randomized consecutive subjects with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) to receive NIV either with the PSV or the ASV mode. The primary outcome was NIV failure (endotracheal intubation, re-institution of NIV within 48 h of discontinuation or mortality). The secondary outcomes were the duration of mechanical ventilation (invasive and noninvasive), the number of NIV manipulations, the visual analogue score (VAS) for physician's ease of use and patient's comfort, and the complications of NIV use. We enrolled 74 subjects (n = 38, PSV; n = 36, ASV; 78.4% males) with a mean (SD) age of 60.5 (9.5) years. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The overall NIV failure rate was 28.4% and was similar between the two groups (PSV versus ASV: 34.2% versus 22.2%, p = 0.31). There was a 9% reduction in the intubation rate with ASV. There were six deaths (PSV versus ASV: 2 versus 4, p = 0.311). There was no difference in the secondary outcomes. The application of NIV using ASV was associated with a similar success rate as PSV in subjects with AECOPD. Due to the small sample size, the results of our study should be confirmed in a larger trial. TRIAL REGISTRY: www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02877524).

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help

• DOI
• PubMed
• PDF locator
• publisher