Yonsei medical journal · 2020
Assisted Breathing with a Diaphragm Pacing System: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Woo A La, Tchoe Ha Jin, Shin Hae Won, Shin Chae Min, Lim Chae Man
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Patients with respiratory failure associated with neurological dysfunction often require mechanical ventilator support, which poses increased economic burden and ventilator-associated complications. A diaphragm pacing system (DPS) is an implanted device that provides respiratory support for such patients. In this systematic review, we reviewed the literature to assess the safety and efficacy of DPS for patients with respiratory failure resulting from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or cervical spinal cord injuries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following databases were searched from July 10 to July 30, 2018: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochran library, KoreaMed, Research Information Sharing Service, Korean studies Information Service System, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, and Korean Medical database. The abstracts and full texts of the searched articles were reviewed by two reviewers.
RESULTS: The search keywords generated 197 articles: two randomized controlled trials, two case-control studies, and one case report involving patients with ALS; one cohort study, one case-control study, and two case reports involving patients with cervical spine injury; and one case report involving patients with both conditions were included. The primary outcome was safety profile (complications and adverse event) and efficacy (overall survival and sleep improvement). Complications and adverse events were more common in patients with ALS and spinal cord injury receiving DPS than in controls. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistent across ALS studies.
CONCLUSION: Based on safety and efficacy results, we do not support using DPS to manage respiratory failure in patients with ALS or cervical spine injury.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following databases were searched from July 10 to July 30, 2018: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochran library, KoreaMed, Research Information Sharing Service, Korean studies Information Service System, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, and Korean Medical database. The abstracts and full texts of the searched articles were reviewed by two reviewers.
RESULTS: The search keywords generated 197 articles: two randomized controlled trials, two case-control studies, and one case report involving patients with ALS; one cohort study, one case-control study, and two case reports involving patients with cervical spine injury; and one case report involving patients with both conditions were included. The primary outcome was safety profile (complications and adverse event) and efficacy (overall survival and sleep improvement). Complications and adverse events were more common in patients with ALS and spinal cord injury receiving DPS than in controls. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistent across ALS studies.
CONCLUSION: Based on safety and efficacy results, we do not support using DPS to manage respiratory failure in patients with ALS or cervical spine injury.