长期控制机械通气后？

In patients recovering from acute respiratory failure, muscle unloading was comparable between PSV levels within the range of 7 to 25 cmH2O and NAVA levels ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 cmH2O/μV [38]. NAVA, however, improved patient-ventilator interactions, preserving breathing variability and allowing better synchronization. Interestingly, NAVA led to a larger contribution of the diaphragm to inspiratory efforts [45], which could potentially improve gas exchange due to enhanced ventilation in basal lung regions [46]. Another study confirmed improved diaphragm function with NAVA compared to PSV after prolonged controlled mechanical ventilation [47], while differences between PSV and PAV+ were not as pronounced [48]. However, in response to increases in elastic loading, a greater respiratory muscle efficiency was found with PAV+ compared to PSV [49, 50].

在急性呼吸衰竭恢复期的患者中，当PSV在7～25cmH2O范围和NAVA在0.5～2.5 cmH2O/ mol/lV范围内呼吸肌负荷下降具有可比性。然而，NAVA改善了人机的相互作用，适应呼吸的变化，并允许更好的人机同步。有趣的是，在NAVA模式中膈肌对吸气的作用更大，可能的原因是增强了基底肺区的通气而潜在地改善气体交换。另一项研究证实，长期控制机械通气后，与PSV相比NAVA可改善膈肌功能，而PSV与PAV+差异不显著。然而与PSV相比，在弹性负荷增加的情况下，PAV+模式下的呼吸肌效率更高。

长期控制机械通气后，是不是就是指  恢复期开始辅助通气了？