MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092259156 · doi:10.4187/respcare.20193239375

Synchronous Diaphragm Contraction Via Electrophrenic Transvenous Neurostimulation Respiration During Mechanical Ventilation Decreases Peak Inspiratory Pressure and Improves Dynamic Compliance in Non-Injured Lungs

2019· article· en· W3092259156 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Rohrs, Marlena Ornowska, Thiago Bassi, K. Fernández, Michelle Nicholas, Steven Reynolds

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsLungpacer Medical (Canada)Simon Fraser UniversityFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTidal volumeMedicineAnesthesiaDiaphragm (acoustics)Peak inspiratory pressureRespirationMechanical ventilationContraction (grammar)Pulmonary complianceRespiratory minute volumeVentilation (architecture)LungLung volumesCompliance (psychology)Respiratory systemInternal medicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:Ventilator-induced lung injury is precipitated by the non-physiological distribution of tidal volume in the lungs, increasing the pressure exerted on alveoli that receive greater volume, and causing the eventual collapse of alveoli that do not receive enough tidal volume. Electrophrenic transvenous neurostimulation respiration (ETNR) stimulates a diaphragm contraction, in synchrony with the ventilator, and may address this problem by re-distributing tidal volume in a more physiological pattern and keeping the lungs open. More alveoli are thus available to receive tidal volume, improving dynamic compliance and reducing ventilation pressures. Methods:A pilot study was conducted using a large animal model (50 kg pigs) mechanically ventilated in a mock intensive care unit. Subjects were deeply sedated and subjected to lung-protective ventilation at 8 mL/kg in volume control. ENTR, selectively adjusted to reduce ventilator pressure-time-product by 15-20%, was delivered every second breath, in synchrony with the inspiratory phase of ventilator-triggered breaths. Peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) and dynamic compliance (Cdyn) were recorded at the start of study and values for MV breaths (no diaphragm contraction) were compared to MVP breaths (ETNR diaphragm contraction) within 5 minutes of each other. Means were compared by paired t-test with a significance level of alpha of 0.5 and beta of 0.80. Institutional Review Board permission was granted for this study. Results:PIP significantly dropped 21%, from 31.6 cm H2O in MV breaths to 24.8 cm H2O in MVP breaths with the addition of ETNR diaphragm contraction during inspiration (P = .021). Cdyn significantly improved 59%, from 32.8 mL/cm H2O in MV breaths to 52.2 mL/cm H2O in MVP breaths with the addition of ETNR diaphragm contraction (P = .007). Conclusions:ETNR diaphragm contraction used as an adjunct to mechanical ventilation significantly decreased PIP and improved Cdyn at the selected intensity. This is an important finding, as a reduction in inspiratory pressure translates into less ventilator-induced lung injury and better outcomes in the ICU. This technology has the potential to provide a novel method of lung-protective ventilation in sedated, ventilated patients. Disclosures: Study sponsorship, technical support and equipment provided by Lungpacer Medical. PhD student salary funding provided by a grant from Lungpacer Medical and Mitacs. Dr. Reynolds is a paid consultant with Lungpacer Medical.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207