Trial reportCritical care medicine2020
Initial Assessment of the Percutaneous Electrical Phrenic Nerve Stimulation System in Patients on Mechanical Ventilation.
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.
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.
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.
Percutaneous Electrical Phrenic Nerve Stimulation (PEPNS) System Feasibility Study
Electrical Phrenic Nerve Stimulation in Patients With Ventilator-induced Diaphragm Dysfunction: a Randomized Controlled Study
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes in critically ill patients after diaphragmatic stimulation on ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction: a systematic review.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Transcutaneous electrical diaphragmatic stimulation in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised study.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Trial
- A preclinical rat model for bilateral phrenic nerve stimulation during mechanical ventilation.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of respiratory training combined with electrical phrenic nerve stimulation on pulmonary and trunk function in individuals who have recently experienced a stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Noninvasive Electromagnetic Phrenic Nerve Stimulation in Critically Ill Patients: A Feasibility Study.Chest · 2024Article
- Article
- Breath-by-breath comparison of a novel percutaneous phrenic nerve stimulation approach with mechanical ventilation in juvenile pigs: a pilot study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Early diaphragm dysfunction assessed by ultrasonography after cardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Phrenic nerve stimulation to prevent diaphragmatic dysfunction and ventilator-induced lung injury.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2023Review
- Phrenic Nerve Stimulation for Acute Respiratory Failure.Respiratory care · 2023Article
- Electrical stimulation mitigates muscle degradation shift in gene expressions during 12-h mechanical ventilation.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Evaluation of electric phrenic nerve stimulation patterns for mechanical ventilation: a pilot study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Diaphragm Neurostimulation Assisted Ventilation in Critically Ill Patients.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2023Review
- Safety and Feasibility of Noninvasive Electromagnetic Stimulation of the Phrenic Nerves.Respiratory care · 2023Article
- Feasibility of transesophageal phrenic nerve stimulation.Biomedical engineering online · 2023Article
- Non-invasive phrenic nerve stimulation to avoid ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction in critical care.Artificial organs · 2022Article
- Short-term phrenic nerve stimulation; no longer a therapy in search of a disease.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- Phrenic nerve stimulation in an ovine model with temporary removable pacing leads.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- Phrenic nerve stimulation prevents diaphragm atrophy in patients with respiratory failure on mechanical ventilation.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021Article
- Urinary Titin N-Fragment as a Biomarker of Muscle Atrophy, Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Weakness, and Possible Application for Post-Intensive Care Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.