Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37081235›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2023

First non-invasive magnetic phrenic nerve and diaphragm stimulation in anaesthetized patients: a proof-of-concept study.

Alessandro Panelli, Hermann Georges Bartels, Sven Krause, Michael André Verfuß, Aline Michèle Grimm, Niklas Martin Carbon, Julius J Grunow, Diego Stutzer, Thomas Niederhauser, Laurent Brochard and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Alessandro PanelliDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Hermann Georges BartelsDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Sven KrauseInstitute for Human Centered Engineering, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Biel, Switzerland.
Michael André VerfußDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Aline Michèle GrimmDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Niklas Martin CarbonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Julius J GrunowDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Diego StutzerInstitute for Human Centered Engineering, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Biel, Switzerland.
Thomas NiederhauserInstitute for Human Centered Engineering, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Biel, Switzerland.
Laurent BrochardKeenan Research Centre for Biomedical Science, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Steffen Weber-CarstensDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Stefan J SchallerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CVK, CCM), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. stefan.schaller@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6683-9584
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEBern University of Applied Sciences · CHTUM Klinikum · DEUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMechanical ventilation has side effects such as ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction, resulting in prolonged intensive care unit length of stays. Artificially evoked diaphragmatic muscle contraction may potentially maintain diaphragmatic muscle function and thereby ameliorate or counteract ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction. We hypothesized that bilateral non-invasive electromagnetic phrenic nerve stimulation (NEPNS) results in adequate diaphragm contractions and consecutively in effective tidal volumes.

resultsThis single-centre proof-of-concept study was performed in five patients who were 30 [IQR 21-33] years old, 60% (n = 3) females and undergoing elective surgery with general anaesthesia. Following anaesthesia and reversal of muscle relaxation, patients received bilateral NEPNS with different magnetic field intensities (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%); the stimulation was performed bilaterally with dual coils (connected to one standard clinical magnetic stimulator), specifically designed for bilateral non-invasive electromagnetic nerve stimulation. The stimulator with a maximal output of 2400 Volt, 160 Joule, pulse length 160 µs at 100% intensity was limited to 50% intensity, i.e. each single coil had a maximal output of 0.55 Tesla and 1200 Volt. There was a linear relationship between dosage (magnetic field intensity) and effect (tidal volume, primary endpoint, p < 0.001). Mean tidal volume was 0.00, 1.81 ± 0.99, 4.55 ± 2.23 and 7.43 ± 3.06 ml/kg ideal body weight applying 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% stimulation intensity, respectively. Mean time to find an initial adequate stimulation point was 89 (range 15-441) seconds.

conclusionsBilateral non-invasive electromagnetic phrenic nerve stimulation generated a tidal volume of 3-6 ml/kg ideal body weight due to diaphragmatic contraction in lung-healthy anaesthetized patients. Further perspectives in critically ill patients should include assessment of clinical outcomes to confirm whether diaphragm contraction through non-invasive electromagnetic phrenic nerve stimulation potentially ameliorates or prevents diaphragm atrophy.

Indexed as

ArtificialMagnetic field therapyMechanical ventilation weaningMuscle weaknessPhrenic nerveRespiration

Identifiers

PMID37081235
PMCPMC10118662
OpenAlexW4366588674

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.