Initial Assessment of the Percutaneous Electrical Phrenic Nerve Stimulation System in Patients on Mechanical Ventilation.
Curley, Gerard F
Ranieri, Marco V
MetadataShow full item record
JournalCritical care medicine
AbstractObjectives: Maintaining diaphragm work using electrical stimulation during mechanical ventilation has been proposed to attenuate ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction. This study assessed the safety and feasibility of temporary percutaneous electrical phrenic nerve stimulation on user-specified inspiratory breaths while on mechanical ventilation. Design: Two-center, nonblinded, nonrandomized study. Setting: Hospital ICU. Patients: Twelve patients mechanically ventilated from 48 hours to an expected 7 days. Interventions: Leads were inserted to lie close to the phrenic nerve in the neck region using ultrasound guidance. Two initial patients had left-sided placement only with remaining patients undergoing bilateral lead placement. Percutaneous electrical phrenic nerve stimulation was used for six 2-hour sessions at 8-hour intervals over 48 hours. Measurements and main results: Data collected included lead deployment success, nerve conduction, ventilation variables, work of breathing, electrical stimulation variables, stimulation breath synchrony, and diaphragm thickness measured by ultrasound at baseline, 24, and 48 hours. Primary endpoints included ability to capture the left and/or right phrenic nerves and maintenance of work of breathing within defined limits for 80% of stimulated breaths. Lead insertion was successful in 21 of 22 attempts (95.5%). Analysis of 36,059 stimulated breaths from 10 patients with attempted bilateral lead placement demonstrated a mean inspiratory lag for phrenic nerve stimulation of 23.7 ms (p < 0.001 vs null hypothesis of <88ms). Work of breathing was maintained between 0.2 and 2.0 joules/L 96.8% of the time, exceeding the 80% target. Mean diaphragm thickness increased from baseline by 7.8% at 24 hours (p = 0.022) and 15.0% at 48 hours (p = 0.0001) for patients receiving bilateral stimulation after excluding one patient with pleural effusion. No serious device/procedure-related adverse events were reported. Conclusions: The present study demonstrated the ability to safely and successfully place percutaneous electrical phrenic nerve stimulation leads in patients on mechanical ventilation and the feasibility of using this approach to synchronize electrical stimulation with inspiration while maintaining work of breathing within defined limits.
- Diaphragm Activation in Ventilated Patients Using a Novel Transvenous Phrenic Nerve Pacing Catheter.
- Authors: Reynolds S, Ebner A, Meffen T, Thakkar V, Gani M, Taylor K, Clark L, Sadarangani G, Meyyappan R, Sandoval R, Rohrs E, Hoffer JA
- Issue date: 2017 Jul
- Mitigation of Ventilator-induced Diaphragm Atrophy by Transvenous Phrenic Nerve Stimulation.
- Authors: Reynolds SC, Meyyappan R, Thakkar V, Tran BD, Nolette MA, Sadarangani G, Sandoval RA, Bruulsema L, Hannigan B, Li JW, Rohrs E, Zurba J, Hoffer JA
- Issue date: 2017 Feb 1
- Diaphragm pacing after bilateral implantation of intradiaphragmatic phrenic stimulation electrodes through a transmediastinal endoscopic minimally invasive approach: pilot animal data.
- Authors: Assouad J, Masmoudi H, Gonzalez-Bermejo J, Morélot-Panzini C, Diop M, Grunenwald D, Similowski T
- Issue date: 2012 Aug
- Can phrenic stimulation protect the diaphragm from mechanical ventilation-induced damage?
- Authors: Masmoudi H, Coirault C, Demoule A, Mayaux J, Beuvin M, Romero N, Assouad J, Similowski T
- Issue date: 2013 Jul
- Stimulus parameters for phrenic nerve pacing in infants and children.
- Authors: Brouillette RT, Ilbawi MN, Klemka-Walden L, Hunt CE
- Issue date: 1988 Jan-Feb