ArticleJournal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques2023
Temporary diaphragm pacing for patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation after extensive aortic repair.
Article in Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diaphragm dysfunction from phrenic nerve injuries during LVAD or heart transplant: Positive role of diaphragm pacing.JHLT open · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV) after extensive aortic reconstructive surgery is common. Studies have demonstrated that diaphragm pacing (DP) improves lung function in patients with unilateral diaphragm paralysis. The goal of this study is to determine whether this technology can be applied to complex aortic repair to reduce prolonged MV and other respiratory sequelae. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent temporary DP after extensive aortic reconstructive surgery between 2019 and 2022. The primary end point was prolonged MV incidence. Other measured end points included diaphragm electromyography improvement, length of hospitalization, duration of intensive care unit stay, and reintubation rates. Results: Fourteen patients deemed at high risk of prolonged MV based on their smoking and respiratory history underwent DP after extensive aortic repair. The mean age was 70.2 years. The indications for aortic repair were a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 8, including 2 ruptured, 2 symptomatic, and 1 mycotic), a perivisceral aneurysm (n = 4), and a perivisceral coral reef aorta (n = 2). All patients had a significant smoking history (active or former) or other risk factors for ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction and prolonged MV. The mean total duration of MV postoperatively was 31.9 hours (range, 8.1-76.5 hours). The total average pacing duration was 4.4 days. Two patients required prolonged MV, with an average of 75.4 hours. Two patients required reintubation. No complications related to DP wire placement or removal occurred. Conclusions: DP is safe and feasible for patients at high risk of pulmonary insufficiency after extensive aortic reconstructive surgery.
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.