SYSTEMATIC REVIEW   Open access

European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2023 December;59(6):772-81

DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.23.08031-0

Copyright © 2023 THE AUTHORS

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license which allows users to copy and distribute the manuscript, as long as this is not done for commercial purposes and further does not permit distribution of the manuscript if it is changed or edited in any way, and as long as the user gives appropriate credits to the original author(s) and the source (with a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI) and provides a link to the license.

lingua: Inglese

Outcomes in critically ill patients after diaphragmatic stimulation on ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction: a systematic review

Alessandro PANELLI ¹, Julius J. GRUNOW ¹, Michael A. VERFUß ¹, Hermann G. BARTELS ¹, Zarina BRASS ², Stefan J. SCHALLER ^{1, 3} ✉

¹ Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (CCM/CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; ² School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; ³ School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Klinikum rechts der Isar Hospital, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

INTRODUCTION: Mechanical ventilation (MV) is a lifesaving procedure for critically ill patients. Diaphragm activation and stimulation may counteract side effects, such as ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction (VIDD). The effects of stimulation on diaphragm atrophy and patient outcomes are reported in this systematic review.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Studies investigating diaphragmatic stimulation versus standard of care in critically ill patients and evaluating clinical outcomes were extracted from a Medline database last on January 23, 2023, after registration in Prospero (CRD42021259353). Selected studies included the investigation of diaphragmatic stimulation versus standard of care in critically ill patients, an evaluation of the clinical outcomes. These included muscle atrophy, VIDD, weaning failure, mortality, quality of life, ventilation time, diaphragmatic function, length of stay in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and length of hospital stay. All articles were independently evaluated by two reviewers according to their abstract and title and, secondly, a full texts evaluation by two independent reviewers was performed. To resolve diverging evaluations, a third reviewer was consulted to reach a final decision. Data were extracted by the reviewers following the Oxford 2011 levels of evidence guidelines and summarized accordingly.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Seven studies were extracted and descriptively synthesized, since a metanalysis was not feasible. Patients undergoing diaphragm stimulation had moderate evidence of higher maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), less atrophy, less mitochondrial respiratory dysfunction, less oxidative stress, less molecular atrophy, shorter MV time, shorter ICU length of stay, longer survival, and better SF-36 scores than control.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of the molecular and histological benefits of diaphragmatic stimulation is limited. The results indicate positive clinical effects of diaphragm activation with a moderate level of evidence for MIP and a low level of evidence for other outcomes. Diaphragm activation could be a therapeutic solution to avoid diaphragm atrophy, accelerate weaning, shorten MV time, and counteract VIDD; however, better-powered studies are needed to increase the level of evidence.

KEY WORDS: Critical care; Phrenic nerve; Respiration, artificial; Ventilators, mechanical