ArticleFrontiers in physiology2024
Evaluation of phrenic nerve stimulation trigger lag and synchronization in different modes of ventilation.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A preclinical rat model for bilateral phrenic nerve stimulation during mechanical ventilation.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phrenic nerve stimulation is currently being investigated for the prevention of diaphragm atrophy in patients with mechanically supported breathing. Patients receiving breathing support from mechanical ventilation are at risk of mismatches between respiratory demand and ventilator support. Our objectives were to determine if a novel phrenic nerve stimulation device provided stimulation during inspiration as intended and did not exacerbate any potential discordances. A benchtop electromechanical simulation model was developed to validate phrenic nerve stimulation with simulated breathing. The phrenic nerve stimulation device was evaluated with a mechanical ventilator attached to a breathing simulator. The trigger ratio and time lag between phrenic nerve stimulation and mechanical ventilation was measured for multiple disease and ventilator parameters. For the 1:1 breath trigger ratio test, 99.79% of intended stimulation breaths received stimulation at the correct time. For the 1:4 breath trigger ratio test, 99.72% of intended stimulation breaths received stimulation at the correct time. For trigger lag times for the inspiratory and expiratory phases, the mean inspiratory lag was 36.10 ± 10.50 ms and 16.61 ± 3.61 ms, respectively. The following discordance scenarios were evaluated in conjunction with simulated phrenic nerve stimulation: asynchrony-false trigger, dyssynchrony-early trigger, dyssynchrony-late trigger, dyssynchrony-early cycling, dyssynchrony-late cycling. Testing demonstrated none of these discordances were exacerbated by the simulated phrenic nerve stimulation. The novel phrenic nerve stimulation device delivered electrical stimulation therapy as intended and did not exacerbate any simulated discordances.
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.