-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Initial Assessment of the Percutaneous Electrical Phrenic Nerve Stimulation System in Patients on Mechanical Ventilation
J. O'Rourke, M. Soták, GF. Curley, A. Doolan, T. Henlín, G. Mullins, T. Tyll, W. Omlie, MV. Ranieri
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu klinické zkoušky, časopisecké články, multicentrická studie, práce podpořená grantem
- MeSH
- bránice inervace MeSH
- elektrostimulační terapie metody MeSH
- jednotky intenzivní péče MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nervus phrenicus patofyziologie MeSH
- respirační paralýza etiologie prevence a kontrola MeSH
- umělé dýchání škodlivé účinky metody MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- klinické zkoušky MeSH
- multicentrická studie MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
OBJECTIVES: Maintaining diaphragm work using electrical stimulation during mechanical ventilation has been proposed to attenuate ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction. This study assessed the safety and feasibility of temporary percutaneous electrical phrenic nerve stimulation on user-specified inspiratory breaths while on mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Two-center, nonblinded, nonrandomized study. SETTING: Hospital ICU. PATIENTS: Twelve patients mechanically ventilated from 48 hours to an expected 7 days. INTERVENTIONS: Leads were inserted to lie close to the phrenic nerve in the neck region using ultrasound guidance. Two initial patients had left-sided placement only with remaining patients undergoing bilateral lead placement. Percutaneous electrical phrenic nerve stimulation was used for six 2-hour sessions at 8-hour intervals over 48 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data collected included lead deployment success, nerve conduction, ventilation variables, work of breathing, electrical stimulation variables, stimulation breath synchrony, and diaphragm thickness measured by ultrasound at baseline, 24, and 48 hours. Primary endpoints included ability to capture the left and/or right phrenic nerves and maintenance of work of breathing within defined limits for 80% of stimulated breaths. Lead insertion was successful in 21 of 22 attempts (95.5%). Analysis of 36,059 stimulated breaths from 10 patients with attempted bilateral lead placement demonstrated a mean inspiratory lag for phrenic nerve stimulation of 23.7 ms (p < 0.001 vs null hypothesis of <88ms). Work of breathing was maintained between 0.2 and 2.0 joules/L 96.8% of the time, exceeding the 80% target. Mean diaphragm thickness increased from baseline by 7.8% at 24 hours (p = 0.022) and 15.0% at 48 hours (p = 0.0001) for patients receiving bilateral stimulation after excluding one patient with pleural effusion. No serious device/procedure-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated the ability to safely and successfully place percutaneous electrical phrenic nerve stimulation leads in patients on mechanical ventilation and the feasibility of using this approach to synchronize electrical stimulation with inspiration while maintaining work of breathing within defined limits.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc21020565
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20210830102218.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 210728s2020 xxu f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004256 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)32191413
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a O'Rourke, James $u Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
- 245 10
- $a Initial Assessment of the Percutaneous Electrical Phrenic Nerve Stimulation System in Patients on Mechanical Ventilation / $c J. O'Rourke, M. Soták, GF. Curley, A. Doolan, T. Henlín, G. Mullins, T. Tyll, W. Omlie, MV. Ranieri
- 520 9_
- $a OBJECTIVES: Maintaining diaphragm work using electrical stimulation during mechanical ventilation has been proposed to attenuate ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction. This study assessed the safety and feasibility of temporary percutaneous electrical phrenic nerve stimulation on user-specified inspiratory breaths while on mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Two-center, nonblinded, nonrandomized study. SETTING: Hospital ICU. PATIENTS: Twelve patients mechanically ventilated from 48 hours to an expected 7 days. INTERVENTIONS: Leads were inserted to lie close to the phrenic nerve in the neck region using ultrasound guidance. Two initial patients had left-sided placement only with remaining patients undergoing bilateral lead placement. Percutaneous electrical phrenic nerve stimulation was used for six 2-hour sessions at 8-hour intervals over 48 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data collected included lead deployment success, nerve conduction, ventilation variables, work of breathing, electrical stimulation variables, stimulation breath synchrony, and diaphragm thickness measured by ultrasound at baseline, 24, and 48 hours. Primary endpoints included ability to capture the left and/or right phrenic nerves and maintenance of work of breathing within defined limits for 80% of stimulated breaths. Lead insertion was successful in 21 of 22 attempts (95.5%). Analysis of 36,059 stimulated breaths from 10 patients with attempted bilateral lead placement demonstrated a mean inspiratory lag for phrenic nerve stimulation of 23.7 ms (p < 0.001 vs null hypothesis of <88ms). Work of breathing was maintained between 0.2 and 2.0 joules/L 96.8% of the time, exceeding the 80% target. Mean diaphragm thickness increased from baseline by 7.8% at 24 hours (p = 0.022) and 15.0% at 48 hours (p = 0.0001) for patients receiving bilateral stimulation after excluding one patient with pleural effusion. No serious device/procedure-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated the ability to safely and successfully place percutaneous electrical phrenic nerve stimulation leads in patients on mechanical ventilation and the feasibility of using this approach to synchronize electrical stimulation with inspiration while maintaining work of breathing within defined limits.
- 650 _2
- $a bránice $x inervace $7 D003964
- 650 _2
- $a elektrostimulační terapie $x metody $7 D004599
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a jednotky intenzivní péče $7 D007362
- 650 _2
- $a nervus phrenicus $x patofyziologie $7 D010791
- 650 _2
- $a umělé dýchání $x škodlivé účinky $x metody $7 D012121
- 650 _2
- $a respirační paralýza $x etiologie $x prevence a kontrola $7 D012133
- 655 _2
- $a klinické zkoušky $7 D016430
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Soták, Michal $u Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Medicine, 1st Medical Faculty and University Military Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic $u Department of Biomedical Technology, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Curley, Gerard F $u Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
- 700 1_
- $a Doolan, Aoife $u Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
- 700 1_
- $a Henlín, Tomáš $u Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Medicine, 1st Medical Faculty and University Military Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Mullins, Gerard $u Department of Neurophysiology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
- 700 1_
- $a Tyll, Tomáš $u Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Medicine, 1st Medical Faculty and University Military Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Omlie, William $u Department of Surgery, Fairview Southdale Hospital, Edina, MN
- 700 1_
- $a Ranieri, Marco V $u Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Umberto I Polyclinic Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
- 773 0_
- $w MED00009514 $t Critical care medicine $x 1530-0293 $g Roč. 48, č. 5 (2020), s. e362-e370
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32191413 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20210728 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20210830102218 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1691189 $s 1141011
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2020 $b 48 $c 5 $d e362-e370 $e - $i 1530-0293 $m Critical care medicine $n Crit Care Med $x MED00009514
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20210728