Background: Pressure support ventilation (PSV) is the prevalent weaning method. Proportional assist ventilation (PAV) is an assisted ventilation mode, which is recently being applied to wean the patients from mechanical ventilation. Whether PAV or PSV is superior for weaning remains unclear.
Methods: Eligible randomized controlled trials published before April 2020 were retrieved from databases. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results: Seven articles, involving 634 patients, met the selection criteria. Compared to PSV, PAV was associated with a significantly higher rate of weaning success (fixed-effect RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.07-1.26; I2 = 0.0%; trial sequential analysis-adjusted CI 1.03-1.30), and the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed. Compared to PSV, PAV was associated with a lower proportion of patients requiring reintubation (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28-0.87; I2 = 0%), a shorter ICU length of stay (MD - 1.58 (days), 95% CI - 2.68 to - 0.47; I2 = 0%), and a shorter mechanical ventilation duration (MD - 40.26 (hours); 95% CI - 66.67 to - 13.84; I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference between PAV and PSV with regard to mortality (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.42-1.06; I2 = 0%) or weaning duration (MD - 0.01 (hours); 95% CI - 1.30-1.28; I2 = 0%).
Conclusion: The results of the meta-analysis suggest that PAV is superior to PSV in terms of weaning success, and the statistical power is confirmed using trial sequential analysis.
Keywords: Meta-analysis; Pressure support ventilation; Proportional assist ventilation; Systemic review; Trial sequential analysis; Ventilator weaning.