Abstract
We Aimed to analyze for which indications neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) has been studied in pediatric patients by conducting a scoping review. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched in September 2023. We included all randomized trials (including crossover, parallel, and cluster) comparing NAVA to other invasive ventilation modalities in children aged <18 years. We had three key outcomes. What have been the patient and disease groups where NAVA has been studied? What kind of trials and what has been the risk of bias in these randomized trials? What have been the most used outcomes and main findings? The risk of bias was assessed according to the risk of bias 2.0 tool. This review has been reported as preferred in PRISMA-ScR guidelines. After screening 367 abstracts, 27 full reports were assessed and finally 13 studies were included. Six studies were conducted in neonates and seven in older pediatric patients. Ten of the studies were crossover and three were parallel randomized. Overall risk of bias was low in two studies, had some concerns in six studies, and was high in five studies. Most issues came from the randomization process and bias in the selection of reported results. Most used outcomes were changes in clinical parameters or measurements (such as ventilation peak and mean airway pressures, oxygenation index), and ventilator synchrony. Three parallel group trials focused on ventilation duration. The majority of the studies found NAVA as a possible alternative ventilation strategy. Although NAVA is a widely used strategy in neonatal and pediatric intensive care the current literature has notable limitations due to the risk of bias in the original studies and lack of parallel studies focusing on clinical or cost-effectiveness outcomes.