Scholarlink

Background <p>Weaning from mechanical ventilation (MV) is an important step for lowering the risk of ventilator-related complications. Currently, pressure support ventilation (PSV) remains the most common weaning mode, whereas proportional assist ventilation (PAV/PAV +) has been proposed as an alternative with better weaning outcomes. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of PAV/PAV + and PSV in adult patients who were weaning from invasive MV.</p> Methods <p>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PAV/PAV + with PSV were identified through major databases up to September 2025. The primary outcomes were weaning success and the reintubation rate; the secondary outcomes included mortality, duration of weaning, and duration of MV. We analyzed the outcomes via RevMan 5.4, with the risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) as the effect measures.</p> Results <p>Seven RCTs encompassing 1,059 patients were included. The rates of weaning success were comparable between PAV/PAV + and PSV (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00–1.16). PAV/PAV + was associated with a significantly lower risk of reintubation (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42–0.97). There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72–1.25), duration of weaning (MD 5.59&#xa0;h; 95% CI, −&#xa0;12.56 to 23.74), or total ventilation duration (MD −&#xa0;8.21&#xa0;h; 95% CI, −&#xa0;74.96 to 58.55).</p> Conclusions <p>We found no significant difference between PAV/PAV + and PSV regarding weaning success, mortality, duration of weaning, or duration of MV. PAV/PAV +, on the other hand, was linked to a decreased rate of reintubation, suggesting a potential benefit in critically ill patients. However, the lack of high-quality evidence precludes any strong conclusions until further large-scale studies confirm these results.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Proportional assist ventilation versus pressure support ventilation for weaning from mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月10日

查看全文
  • Nathaniel Eyiah,
  • Ahmad Sohail,
  • Syed Awab Ali,
  • Mahnoor Naeem,
  • Armaghan Hanif,
  • Ali Saqlain Saleem,
  • Muhammad Usman,
  • Muhammad Umer,
  • Talha Tariq,
  • Muhammad Zain ul Abideen,
  • Uzair Jafar,
  • Asma’a Munasar Ali Alsubari,
  • Muhammad Ahmad Nadeem,
  • Ahmed Nadeem,
  • Muhammad Hamza

摘要

Background

Weaning from mechanical ventilation (MV) is an important step for lowering the risk of ventilator-related complications. Currently, pressure support ventilation (PSV) remains the most common weaning mode, whereas proportional assist ventilation (PAV/PAV +) has been proposed as an alternative with better weaning outcomes. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of PAV/PAV + and PSV in adult patients who were weaning from invasive MV.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PAV/PAV + with PSV were identified through major databases up to September 2025. The primary outcomes were weaning success and the reintubation rate; the secondary outcomes included mortality, duration of weaning, and duration of MV. We analyzed the outcomes via RevMan 5.4, with the risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) as the effect measures.

Results

Seven RCTs encompassing 1,059 patients were included. The rates of weaning success were comparable between PAV/PAV + and PSV (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00–1.16). PAV/PAV + was associated with a significantly lower risk of reintubation (RR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42–0.97). There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72–1.25), duration of weaning (MD 5.59 h; 95% CI, − 12.56 to 23.74), or total ventilation duration (MD − 8.21 h; 95% CI, − 74.96 to 58.55).

Conclusions

We found no significant difference between PAV/PAV + and PSV regarding weaning success, mortality, duration of weaning, or duration of MV. PAV/PAV +, on the other hand, was linked to a decreased rate of reintubation, suggesting a potential benefit in critically ill patients. However, the lack of high-quality evidence precludes any strong conclusions until further large-scale studies confirm these results.