ArticleJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2025
Diaphragmatic pacing system from the point of view of the patients: 14 years of clinical experience and follow-up.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh cervical spinal diseases (C1-C4), resulting in paralysis of the respiratory muscles, makes the person dependent on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for life support. Although effective from a ventilatory point of view, IMV is associated with increased morbidity and mortality; ventilated patients have higher rates of respiratory complications, a significant reduction in life expectancy, and above all, a serious psychological repercussion with estrangement from the world. Diaphragmatic pacing system (DPS) is a well-established technique capable of restoring paraphysiological ventilation. AIM OF THE STUDY: A narrative review of the case history and their follow-up of 13 patients dependent on life support ventilation who have been implanted since 2011 in the Neurocritical Care Unit of the Niguarda Hospital, Milan.
resultsDiaphragmatic pacing system was successful implanted in all the patients: of them 9 were affected by traumatic cervical SCI, 2 by Arnold Chiari sequelae, 1 due to a spontaneous ischemia. One patient with Pompe disease was included although his pathophysiology primarly affects the diaphragm instead the high cervical spine tract. During the 14 years follow-up, 92% of patients (12/13) used DPS and in 42 % of them (5/12 patients) we were able to be disconnected from IMV for at least 12 h. One of the patients (7.7%) was completely weaned from IMV and the tracheostomy was finally removed. One patient needed hospitalization for a respiratory complication. All the patients perceived their quality of life to be excellent or good. DISCUSSION: The long-term follow-up of 13 patients with DPS suggests that the implant could be a potential long-term alternative to IMV, particularly in terms of quality of life. The diaphragmatic stimulator protects from IMV associated respiratory complications, therefore reducing hospitalization. Allowing spontaneous breathing for a variable number of hours enables the caregiver to support the individual more effectively, facilitating their reintegration into daily social and work activities. Diaphragmatic pacing system does not eliminate the disability but allows for more independent years of life with a greater possibility of social reintegration.
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.