Respiratory medicine · 2026
Adaptive support ventilation with IntelliSync versus pressure support ventilation for non-invasive ventilation in acute exacerbation of COPD: A feasibility randomized trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vijay Selva, Sehgal Inderpaul Singh, Agarwal Ritesh, Muthu Valliappan, Dhooria Sahajal, Prasad Kuruswamy Thurai, Aggarwal Ashutosh Nath
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: While non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is recommended for managing acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD), it has a 30-40% failure rate when delivered using pressure support ventilation (PSV). Adaptive support ventilation with IntelliSync (ASVi) synchronizes breath initiation and cycling to match patient's requirements. We conducted a feasibility study to inform design of a larger trial and compared NIV failure rates using PSV or ASVi in patients with AECOPD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a single-center, randomized controlled trial from December 2023 to April 2025 in subjects with AECOPD. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive NIV using PSV or ASVi. The primary outcome was NIV failure, defined as the need for airway intubation. Key secondary outcomes included the asynchrony index and 28-day all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: We included 55 consecutive subjects with AECOPD (ASVi, n = 26; PSV, n = 29), with a mean age of 63 years. NIV failure occurred in15.4% (4/26) with ASVi versus 31% (9/29) with PSV, representing a 50% relative risk reduction (absolute difference 15.6%, 95% CI: -6.2%-37.5%, P = 0.17). Asynchrony index was similar between groups (22.6 ± 17.8 ASVi vs. 21.5 ± 16.7 PSV, P = 0.83). ASVi was associated with significantly greater patient comfort (P = 0.048) and shorter hospital stay (3.9 ± 2.9 vs 5.8 ± 4.0 days, P = 0.021).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that ASVi is safe, feasible to implement, and associated with improved patient comfort and significantly reduced hospital stay in AECOPD. The observed 50% relative reduction in NIV failure rates, although not statistically significant, represents a clinically meaningful effect that warrants evaluation in a larger trial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a single-center, randomized controlled trial from December 2023 to April 2025 in subjects with AECOPD. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive NIV using PSV or ASVi. The primary outcome was NIV failure, defined as the need for airway intubation. Key secondary outcomes included the asynchrony index and 28-day all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: We included 55 consecutive subjects with AECOPD (ASVi, n = 26; PSV, n = 29), with a mean age of 63 years. NIV failure occurred in15.4% (4/26) with ASVi versus 31% (9/29) with PSV, representing a 50% relative risk reduction (absolute difference 15.6%, 95% CI: -6.2%-37.5%, P = 0.17). Asynchrony index was similar between groups (22.6 ± 17.8 ASVi vs. 21.5 ± 16.7 PSV, P = 0.83). ASVi was associated with significantly greater patient comfort (P = 0.048) and shorter hospital stay (3.9 ± 2.9 vs 5.8 ± 4.0 days, P = 0.021).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that ASVi is safe, feasible to implement, and associated with improved patient comfort and significantly reduced hospital stay in AECOPD. The observed 50% relative reduction in NIV failure rates, although not statistically significant, represents a clinically meaningful effect that warrants evaluation in a larger trial.