Anthony F DiMarco1,2,3, Robert T Geertman4,3, Gregory A Nemunaitis1,5, Krzysztof E Kowalski1,2,3. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Case Western Reserve University, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 2. Department of Research, Case Western Reserve University, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 3. Case Western Reserve University, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Case Western Reserve University, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and effectiveness of wire (WE) vs. disc (DE) electrodes to restore cough in subjects with spinal cord injury (SCI). DESIGN: Clinical trials assessing the effectiveness and clinical outcomes associated with two electrode systems to activate the expiratory muscles. SETTING: Inpatient hospital setting for DE or WE electrode insertion; outpatient evaluation of cough efficacy and instructions for home use. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-nine subjects with SCI; 17 participants with DE and 12 with WE implants. INTERVENTION: Surgical implantation of WE or DE to restore cough. Daily application of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at home. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Airway pressure (P) and peak airflow (F) generation achieved with SCS; clinical parameters including ease in raising secretions, incidence of acute respiratory tract infections (RTI) and side effects. RESULTS: P and F achieved with DE and WE were not significantly different. For example, at total lung capacity (TLC) with participant effort, P was 128 ± 12 cmH2O and 118 ± 14 cmH2O, with DE and WE, respectively. The degree of difficulty in raising secretions improved markedly in both groups. The incidence of RTI per year fell from 1.3 ± 0.3 and 1.3 ± 0.5-0.3 ± 0.1 and 0.1 ± 0.1 for DE and WE groups, respectively (P < 0.01 for both when compared to pre-implant values and NS between DE and WE groups). The only significant side effect i.e. short-term autonomic dysreflexia was also similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this investigation indicate that both DE and WE result in comparable degrees of expiratory muscle activation, clinical benefits and side effects. Importantly, SCS to restore cough can be achieved with use of WE which can be placed using minimally invasive techniques and associated reduction in cost, surgical time and overall risk.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00116337., NCT01659541, FDA IDE: G980267.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and effectiveness of wire (WE) vs. disc (DE) electrodes to restore cough in subjects with spinal cord injury (SCI). DESIGN: Clinical trials assessing the effectiveness and clinical outcomes associated with two electrode systems to activate the expiratory muscles. SETTING: Inpatient hospital setting for DE or WE electrode insertion; outpatient evaluation of cough efficacy and instructions for home use. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-nine subjects with SCI; 17 participants with DE and 12 with WE implants. INTERVENTION: Surgical implantation of WE or DE to restore cough. Daily application of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at home. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Airway pressure (P) and peak airflow (F) generation achieved with SCS; clinical parameters including ease in raising secretions, incidence of acute respiratory tract infections (RTI) and side effects. RESULTS: P and F achieved with DE and WE were not significantly different. For example, at total lung capacity (TLC) with participant effort, P was 128 ± 12 cmH2O and 118 ± 14 cmH2O, with DE and WE, respectively. The degree of difficulty in raising secretions improved markedly in both groups. The incidence of RTI per year fell from 1.3 ± 0.3 and 1.3 ± 0.5-0.3 ± 0.1 and 0.1 ± 0.1 for DE and WE groups, respectively (P < 0.01 for both when compared to pre-implant values and NS between DE and WE groups). The only significant side effect i.e. short-term autonomic dysreflexia was also similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this investigation indicate that both DE and WE result in comparable degrees of expiratory muscle activation, clinical benefits and side effects. Importantly, SCS to restore cough can be achieved with use of WE which can be placed using minimally invasive techniques and associated reduction in cost, surgical time and overall risk.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00116337., NCT01659541, FDA IDE: G980267.
Authors: Anthony F DiMarco; Krzysztof E Kowalski; Robert T Geertman; Dana R Hromyak; Fredrick S Frost; Graham H Creasey; Gregory A Nemunaitis Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 3.966