Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) Versus Conventional Biphasic Positive End Expiratory Pressure (BiPAP) Non-Invasive Respiratory Support in Infants Following Congenital Heart Surgery

Mechanical ventilation is often very necessary in the care of critically ill pediatric patients. However, it comes with many different complications that include chronic lung disease, tissue damage, and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Over time, we have increased our understanding of how a child's physiology interacts with a ventilator and this has led to two different non-invasive forms of respiratory support: bilevel positive air pressure (BiPAP) and neurally adjusted ventilator assist (NAVA). While both modalities come with a lot of benefits such as improved gas exchange, decreased respiratory and heart rate and decreased inspiratory work of breathing, NAVA has the ability to provide synchronous ventilatory support due to the electrical activity of the diaphragm.

The purpose of this study is to compare clinical outcomes following use of NAVA versus BiPAP in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, Specifically, comparisons of non-invasive respiratory support, duration of sedation, and length of hospital stay. The investigators hypothesize that the use of NAVA will lead to a shorter duration of non-invasive respiratory support, less sedation requirements, and reduced length of hospital stay compared to the use of BiPAP.

This is a single-site, prospective randomized study. Subjects are randomized into two arms: those who receive NAVA and those who receive BiPAP post-operatively.

Subjects will be followed for up to 14 days post-operatively or until they are discharged, whichever comes first. Pain medication administered, FLACC (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability), and SBS (State Behavioral Scale) scores are recorded daily for up to 14 days.