Chest · 2012
Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation in patients with Cheyne-Stokes respiration and congestive heart failure: a safety and proof-of-concept study.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Zhang Xi-Long, Ding Ning, Wang Hong, Augostini Ralph, Yang Bing, Xu Di, Ju Weizhu, Hou Xiaofeng, Li Xinli, Ni Buqing, Cao Kejiang, George Isaac, Wang Jie, Zhang Shi-Jiang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cheyne-Stokes respiration (CSR), which often occurs in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), may be a predictor for poor outcome. Phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) may interrupt CSR in patients with CHF. We report the clinical use of transvenous PNS in patients with CHF and CSR.
METHODS: Nineteen patients with CHF and CSR were enrolled. A single stimulation lead was placed at the junction between the superior vena cava and brachiocephalic vein or in the left-side pericardiophrenic vein. PNS stimulation was performed using Eupnea System device (RespiCardia Inc). Respiratory properties were assessed before and during PNS. PNS was assessed at a maximum of 10 mA.
RESULTS: Successful stimulation capture was achieved in 16 patients. Failure to capture occurred in three patients because of dislocation of leads. No adverse events were seen under maximum normal stimulation parameters for an overnight study. When PNS was applied following a series of central sleep apneic events, a trend toward stabilization of breathing and heart rate as well as improvement in oxygen saturation was seen. Compared with pre-PNS, during PNS there was a significant decrease in apnea-hypopnea index (33.8 ± 9.3 vs 8.1 ± 2.3, P = .00), an increase in mean and minimal oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (89.7% ± 1.6% vs 94.3% ± 0.9% and 80.3% ± 3.7% vs 88.5% ± 3.3%, respectively, all P = .00) and end-tidal CO2 (38.0 ± 4.3 mm Hg vs 40.3 ± 3.1 mm Hg, P = .02), but no significant difference in sleep efficiency (74.6% ± 4.1% vs 73.7% ± 5.4%, P = .36).
CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results showed that in a small group of patients with CHF and CSR, 1 night of unilateral transvenous PNS improved indices of CSR and was not associated with adverse events.
METHODS: Nineteen patients with CHF and CSR were enrolled. A single stimulation lead was placed at the junction between the superior vena cava and brachiocephalic vein or in the left-side pericardiophrenic vein. PNS stimulation was performed using Eupnea System device (RespiCardia Inc). Respiratory properties were assessed before and during PNS. PNS was assessed at a maximum of 10 mA.
RESULTS: Successful stimulation capture was achieved in 16 patients. Failure to capture occurred in three patients because of dislocation of leads. No adverse events were seen under maximum normal stimulation parameters for an overnight study. When PNS was applied following a series of central sleep apneic events, a trend toward stabilization of breathing and heart rate as well as improvement in oxygen saturation was seen. Compared with pre-PNS, during PNS there was a significant decrease in apnea-hypopnea index (33.8 ± 9.3 vs 8.1 ± 2.3, P = .00), an increase in mean and minimal oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (89.7% ± 1.6% vs 94.3% ± 0.9% and 80.3% ± 3.7% vs 88.5% ± 3.3%, respectively, all P = .00) and end-tidal CO2 (38.0 ± 4.3 mm Hg vs 40.3 ± 3.1 mm Hg, P = .02), but no significant difference in sleep efficiency (74.6% ± 4.1% vs 73.7% ± 5.4%, P = .36).
CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results showed that in a small group of patients with CHF and CSR, 1 night of unilateral transvenous PNS improved indices of CSR and was not associated with adverse events.