MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610104079 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000002366

Diaphragm Activation in Ventilated Patients Using a Novel Transvenous Phrenic Nerve Pacing Catheter

2017· article· en· W2610104079 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Reynolds, Adrián Ebner, Tracy Meffen, Matt Gani, Kaity Taylor, Linda A. Clark, Gautam Sadarangani, Ramasamy Meyyappan, Rodrigo Sandoval, Elizabeth Rohrs, J. A. Hoffer

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsLungpacer Medical (Canada)Simon Fraser UniversityFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationDiaphragm (acoustics)AnesthesiaPhrenic nerveCatheterSeldinger techniqueSuperior vena cavaSurgeryArtificial ventilationVenous return curveRespiratory systemLungRespiratory diseaseInternal medicineHemodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Over 30% of critically ill patients on positive-pressure mechanical ventilation have difficulty weaning from the ventilator, many of whom acquire ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction. Temporary transvenous phrenic nerve pacing using a novel electrode-bearing catheter may provide a means to prevent diaphragm atrophy, to strengthen an atrophied diaphragm, and mitigate the harms of mechanical ventilation. We tested the initial safety, feasibility, and impact on ventilation of this novel approach. DESIGN: First-in-Humans case series. SETTING: Angiogram suite. PATIENTS: Twenty-four sedated, mechanically ventilated patients immediately prior to an elective atrial septal defect repair procedure. INTERVENTIONS: A 9.5-Fr central venous catheter with 19 embedded electrodes was placed via Seldinger technique into the left subclavian vein and superior vena cava and evaluated for up to 90 minutes. The electrode combinations determined to provide best transvenous stimulation of the right and left phrenic nerves were activated in synchrony with mechanically ventilated breaths. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One patient could not be tested for reasons unrelated to the device. In the 23 patients who underwent the full protocol, transvenous stimulation activated the diaphragm in 22 of 23 (96%) left phrenic capture attempts and 20 of 23 (87%) right phrenic capture attempts. In one subject, a congenital left-sided superior vena cava precluded right-sided capture. Significant reductions in ventilator pressure-time-product were achieved during stimulation assisted breaths in all 22 paced subjects (range, 9.9-48.6%; p < 0.001). There were no adverse events either immediately or at 2-week follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this First-in-Human series, diaphragm pacing with a temporary catheter was safe and effectively contributed to ventilation in conjunction with a mechanical ventilator.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207