Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


To compare the effects of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) with other forms of synchronized artificial ventilation in preterm infants. A systematic review of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials with individual group allocation, both parallel-group trials as well as crossover trials, that included preterm infants born at less than 37 weeks gestational age and compared NAVA with any other form of synchronized mechanical ventilation with or without volume guarantee. Primary outcomes were death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 36 weeks, total duration of respiratory support and neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years. Secondary outcomes consisted of important procedural and clinical outcomes. Seven studies with a total of 191 infants were included, five randomized crossover trials and two parallel group randomized trials. No significant difference in the primary outcome of death or BPD (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.33−3.55) was found. Peak inspiratory pressures were significantly lower with NAVA than with other forms of ventilation (MD −1.83 cmH2O [95% CI: −2.95 to −0.71]). No difference in any other clinical or ventilatory outcome was detected. Although associated with lower peak inspiratory pressures, the use of NAVA does not result in a reduced risk of death or BPD as compared to other forms of synchronized ventilation in preterm infants. However, the certainty of evidence is low due to imprecision of the effect estimate. Larger studies are needed to detect possible short- and long-term differences between ventilation modes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1862-1870
Number of pages9
JournalPediatric Pulmonology
Issue number7
Publication statusPublished - 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.


Dive into the research topics of 'Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this