Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32554888›Full record

ArticleJournal of neural engineering2020

Sources of off-target effects of vagus nerve stimulation using the helical clinical lead in domestic pigs.

Evan N Nicolai, Megan L Settell, Bruce E Knudsen, Andrea L McConico, Brian A Gosink, James K Trevathan, Ian W Baumgart, Erika K Ross, Nicole A Pelot, Warren M Grill and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neural engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Evan N NicolaiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States of America. Mayo Clinic, Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Rochester, MN, United States of America. Wisconsin Institute of Neuroengineering (WITNe), University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, United States of America.
Megan L Settell
Bruce E Knudsen
Andrea L McConico
Brian A Gosink
James K Trevathan
Ian W Baumgart
Erika K Ross
Nicole A Pelot
Warren M Grill
Kenneth J Gustafson
Andrew J Shoffstall
Justin C Williams
Kip A Ludwig
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USDuke University · USLouis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center · USAbbott (United States) · USMayo Clinic in Florida · US

Funding

NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002380 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Felicity T. B. Enders, ANTHONY John WINDEBANK · 2017 to 2026
$6.0M
Modeling Activation and Block of Autonomic Nerves for Analysis and DesignOT2OD025340 · OD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI GRILL, WARREN M. · 2017 to 2021
$5.9M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002380NIH HHS OT2 OD025340
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Clinical data suggest that efficacious vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is limited by side effects such as cough and dyspnea that have stimulation thresholds lower than those for therapeutic outcomes. VNS side effects are putatively caused by activation of nearby muscles within the neck, via direct muscle activation or activation of nerve fibers innervating those muscles. Our goal was to determine the thresholds at which various VNS-evoked effects occur in the domestic pig—an animal model with vagus anatomy similar to human—using the bipolar helical lead deployed clinically. Approach: Intrafascicular electrodes were placed within the vagus nerve to record electroneurographic (ENG) responses, and needle electrodes were placed in the vagal-innervated neck muscles to record electromyographic (EMG) responses. Main results: Contraction of the cricoarytenoid muscle occurred at low amplitudes (~0.3 mA) and resulted from activation of motor nerve fibers in the cervical vagus trunk within the electrode cuff which bifurcate into the recurrent laryngeal branch of the vagus. At higher amplitudes (~1.4 mA), contraction of the cricoarytenoid and cricothyroid muscles was generated by current leakage outside the cuff to activate motor nerve fibers running within the nearby superior laryngeal branch of the vagus. Activation of these muscles generated artifacts in the ENG recordings that may be mistaken for compound action potentials representing slowly conducting Aδ-, B-, and C-fibers. Significance: Our data resolve conflicting reports of the stimulation amplitudes required for C-fiber activation in large animal studies (>10 mA) and human studies (<250 μA). After removing muscle-generated artifacts, ENG signals with post-stimulus latencies consistent with Aδ- and B-fibers occurred in only a small subset of animals, and these signals had similar thresholds to those that caused bradycardia. By identifying specific neuroanatomical pathways that cause off-target effects and characterizing the stimulation dose-response curves for on- and off-target effects, we hope to guide interpretation and optimization of clinical VNS.

Indexed as

Vagus Nerve StimulationAction PotentialsAnimalsLaryngeal MusclesSus scrofaSwineVagus Nerve

Identifiers

PMID32554888
PMCPMC7717671
OpenAlexW3036758132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.