Evaluating the evidence: is phrenic nerve stimulation a safe and effective tool for decreasing ventilator dependence in patients with high cervical spinal cord injuries and central hypoventilation?

Emily P. Sieg, Russell A. Payne, Sprague Hazard, Elias Rizk

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Case reports, case series and case control studies have looked at the use of phrenic nerve stimulators in the setting of high spinal cord injuries and central hypoventilation syndromes dating back to the 1980s. We evaluated the evidence related to this topic by performing a systematic review of the published literature. Methods: Search terms “phrenic nerve stimulation,” “phrenic nerve and spinal cord injury,” and “phrenic nerve and central hypoventilation” were entered into standard search engines in a systematic fashion. Articles were reviewed by two study authors and graded independently for class of evidence according to published guidelines. The published evidence was reviewed, and the overall body of evidence was evaluated using the grading of recommendations, assesment, development and evaluations (GRADE) criteria Balshem et al. (J Clin Epidemiol 64:401–406, 2011). Results: Our initial search yielded 420 articles. There were no class I, II, or III studies. There were 18 relevant class IV articles. There were no discrepancies among article ratings (i.e., kappa = 1). A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the low quality of the available evidence. The overall quality of the body of evidence was evaluated using GRADE criteria and fell within the “very poor” category. Conclusion: The quality of the published literature for phrenic nerve stimulation is poor. Our review of the literature suggests that phrenic nerve stimulation is a safe and effective option for decreasing ventilator dependence in high spinal cord injuries and central hypoventilation; however, we are left with critical questions that provide crucial directions for future studies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1033-1038
Number of pages6
JournalChild's Nervous System
Volume32
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2016

Fingerprint

Hypoventilation
Phrenic Nerve
Mechanical Ventilators
Spinal Cord Injuries
Search Engine
Meta-Analysis
Cervical Cord
Case-Control Studies
Guidelines

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

@article{cac370dbfcac4af9a0e9902a08abe072,
title = "Evaluating the evidence: is phrenic nerve stimulation a safe and effective tool for decreasing ventilator dependence in patients with high cervical spinal cord injuries and central hypoventilation?",
abstract = "Introduction: Case reports, case series and case control studies have looked at the use of phrenic nerve stimulators in the setting of high spinal cord injuries and central hypoventilation syndromes dating back to the 1980s. We evaluated the evidence related to this topic by performing a systematic review of the published literature. Methods: Search terms “phrenic nerve stimulation,” “phrenic nerve and spinal cord injury,” and “phrenic nerve and central hypoventilation” were entered into standard search engines in a systematic fashion. Articles were reviewed by two study authors and graded independently for class of evidence according to published guidelines. The published evidence was reviewed, and the overall body of evidence was evaluated using the grading of recommendations, assesment, development and evaluations (GRADE) criteria Balshem et al. (J Clin Epidemiol 64:401–406, 2011). Results: Our initial search yielded 420 articles. There were no class I, II, or III studies. There were 18 relevant class IV articles. There were no discrepancies among article ratings (i.e., kappa = 1). A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the low quality of the available evidence. The overall quality of the body of evidence was evaluated using GRADE criteria and fell within the “very poor” category. Conclusion: The quality of the published literature for phrenic nerve stimulation is poor. Our review of the literature suggests that phrenic nerve stimulation is a safe and effective option for decreasing ventilator dependence in high spinal cord injuries and central hypoventilation; however, we are left with critical questions that provide crucial directions for future studies.",
author = "Sieg, {Emily P.} and Payne, {Russell A.} and Sprague Hazard and Elias Rizk",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00381-016-3086-2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "1033--1038",
journal = "Child's Nervous System",
issn = "0256-7040",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating the evidence

T2 - is phrenic nerve stimulation a safe and effective tool for decreasing ventilator dependence in patients with high cervical spinal cord injuries and central hypoventilation?

AU - Sieg, Emily P.

AU - Payne, Russell A.

AU - Hazard, Sprague

AU - Rizk, Elias

PY - 2016/6/1

Y1 - 2016/6/1

N2 - Introduction: Case reports, case series and case control studies have looked at the use of phrenic nerve stimulators in the setting of high spinal cord injuries and central hypoventilation syndromes dating back to the 1980s. We evaluated the evidence related to this topic by performing a systematic review of the published literature. Methods: Search terms “phrenic nerve stimulation,” “phrenic nerve and spinal cord injury,” and “phrenic nerve and central hypoventilation” were entered into standard search engines in a systematic fashion. Articles were reviewed by two study authors and graded independently for class of evidence according to published guidelines. The published evidence was reviewed, and the overall body of evidence was evaluated using the grading of recommendations, assesment, development and evaluations (GRADE) criteria Balshem et al. (J Clin Epidemiol 64:401–406, 2011). Results: Our initial search yielded 420 articles. There were no class I, II, or III studies. There were 18 relevant class IV articles. There were no discrepancies among article ratings (i.e., kappa = 1). A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the low quality of the available evidence. The overall quality of the body of evidence was evaluated using GRADE criteria and fell within the “very poor” category. Conclusion: The quality of the published literature for phrenic nerve stimulation is poor. Our review of the literature suggests that phrenic nerve stimulation is a safe and effective option for decreasing ventilator dependence in high spinal cord injuries and central hypoventilation; however, we are left with critical questions that provide crucial directions for future studies.

AB - Introduction: Case reports, case series and case control studies have looked at the use of phrenic nerve stimulators in the setting of high spinal cord injuries and central hypoventilation syndromes dating back to the 1980s. We evaluated the evidence related to this topic by performing a systematic review of the published literature. Methods: Search terms “phrenic nerve stimulation,” “phrenic nerve and spinal cord injury,” and “phrenic nerve and central hypoventilation” were entered into standard search engines in a systematic fashion. Articles were reviewed by two study authors and graded independently for class of evidence according to published guidelines. The published evidence was reviewed, and the overall body of evidence was evaluated using the grading of recommendations, assesment, development and evaluations (GRADE) criteria Balshem et al. (J Clin Epidemiol 64:401–406, 2011). Results: Our initial search yielded 420 articles. There were no class I, II, or III studies. There were 18 relevant class IV articles. There were no discrepancies among article ratings (i.e., kappa = 1). A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the low quality of the available evidence. The overall quality of the body of evidence was evaluated using GRADE criteria and fell within the “very poor” category. Conclusion: The quality of the published literature for phrenic nerve stimulation is poor. Our review of the literature suggests that phrenic nerve stimulation is a safe and effective option for decreasing ventilator dependence in high spinal cord injuries and central hypoventilation; however, we are left with critical questions that provide crucial directions for future studies.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84963732646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84963732646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00381-016-3086-2

DO - 10.1007/s00381-016-3086-2

M3 - Review article

C2 - 27083568

AN - SCOPUS:84963732646

VL - 32

SP - 1033

EP - 1038

JO - Child's Nervous System

JF - Child's Nervous System

SN - 0256-7040

IS - 6

ER -