Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32191413›Full record

Trial reportCritical care medicine2020

Initial Assessment of the Percutaneous Electrical Phrenic Nerve Stimulation System in Patients on Mechanical Ventilation.

James O'Rourke, Michal Soták, Gerard F Curley, Aoife Doolan, Tomáš Henlín, Gerard Mullins, Tomáš Tyll, William Omlie, Marco V Ranieri

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Critical care medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03559933 nacompletednot on this map

Percutaneous Electrical Phrenic Nerve Stimulation (PEPNS) System Feasibility Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorStimdia Medical Inc.Ran2018 to 2019Enrolled12ConditionsVentilator Induced Diaphragmatic Dysfunction (VIDD)ArmsPEPNS System
NCT06436950 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Electrical Phrenic Nerve Stimulation in Patients With Ventilator-induced Diaphragm Dysfunction: a Randomized Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorPeking University Third HospitalRan2024 to 2026Enrolled40ConditionsDiaphragms, Phrenic NervesArmstranscutaneous electrical phrenic nerve stimulation (TEPNS)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Diaphragm Neurostimulation Assisted Ventilation in Critically Ill Patients.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

James O'RourkeDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Michal SotákDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Medicine, 1st Medical Faculty and University Military Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Gerard F CurleyDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Aoife DoolanDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Tomáš HenlínDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Medicine, 1st Medical Faculty and University Military Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
Gerard MullinsDepartment of Neurophysiology, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Tomáš TyllDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Medicine, 1st Medical Faculty and University Military Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
William OmlieDepartment of Surgery, Fairview Southdale Hospital, Edina, MN.
Marco V RanieriDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Umberto I Polyclinic Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Beaumont Hospital · IEMilitary University Hospital Prague · CZRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IECzech Technical University in Prague · CZPoliclinico Umberto I · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMaintaining 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.

designTwo-center, nonblinded, nonrandomized study.

settingHospital ICU. PATIENTS: Twelve patients mechanically ventilated from 48 hours to an expected 7 days.

interventionsLeads 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

resultsData 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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

DiaphragmElectric Stimulation TherapyHumansIntensive Care UnitsPhrenic NerveRespiration, ArtificialRespiratory Paralysis

Identifiers

PMID32191413
PMCPMC7161723
OpenAlexW3006860131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.