MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389672755 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000004873

An Initial Investigation of Diaphragm Neurostimulation in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

2023· article· en· W4389672755 on OpenAlexaff
Mélodie Parfait, Elizabeth Rohrs, Vincent Joussellin, Julien Mayaux, Maxens Decavèle, Steven Reynolds, Thomas Similowski, Alexandre Demoule, Martin Dres

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaMechanical ventilationARDSNeurostimulationDiaphragm (acoustics)Fraction of inspired oxygenLungCardiologyInternal medicineStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lung protective ventilation aims at limiting lung stress and strain. By reducing the amount of pressure transmitted by the ventilator into the lungs, diaphragm neurostimulation offers a promising approach to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury. This study investigates the physiologic effects of diaphragm neurostimulation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. The hypothesis was that diaphragm neurostimulation would improve oxygenation, would limit the distending pressures of the lungs, and would improve cardiac output. METHODS: Patients with moderate ARDS were included after 48 h of invasive mechanical ventilation and had a left subclavian catheter placed to deliver bilateral transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation. Two 60-min volume-controlled mechanical ventilation (control) sessions were interspersed by two 60-min diaphragm neurostimulation sessions delivered continually, in synchrony with the ventilator. Gas exchange, lung mechanics, chest electrical impedance tomography, and cardiac index were continuously monitored and compared across four sessions. The primary endpoint was the Pao2/fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) ratio at the end of each session, and the secondary endpoints were lung mechanics and hemodynamics. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled but the catheter could not be inserted in one, leaving 12 patients for analysis. All sessions were conducted without interruption and well tolerated. The Pao2/Fio2 ratio did not change during the four sessions. Median (interquartile range) plateau pressure was 23 (20 to 31) cm H2O and 21 (17 to 25) cm H2O, driving pressure was 14 (12 to 18) cm H2O and 11 (10 to 13) cm H2O, and end-inspiratory transpulmonary pressure was 9 (5 to 11) cm H2O and 7 (4 to 11) cm H2O during mechanical ventilation alone and during mechanical ventilation + neurostimulation session, respectively. The dorsal/ventral ventilation surface ratio was 0.70 (0.54 to 0.91) when on mechanical ventilation and 1.20 (0.76 to 1.33) during the mechanical ventilation + neurostimulation session. The cardiac index was 2.7 (2.3 to 3.5) l · min-1 · m-2 on mechanical ventilation and 3.0 (2.4 to 3.9) l · min-1 · m-2 on mechanical ventilation + neurostimulation. CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-concept study showed the feasibility of short-term diaphragm neurostimulation in conjunction with mechanical ventilation in ARDS patients. Diaphragm neurostimulation was associated with positive effects on lung mechanics and on hemodynamics.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207