The Experts below are selected from a list of 627 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Kimberley R Monden - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
long term follow up of individuals with Ventilator dependent high tetraplegia managed with diaphragmatic pacing systems
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2021Co-Authors: Kimberley R Monden, Jennifer Coker, Susan Charlifue, Stephanie J Bennett, Christina Draganich, David Coons, Ralph J Marino, Jeffrey BerlinerAbstract:Abstract Objective To explore participants’ experiences after implantation of a diaphragmatic pacing system (DPS). Design Cross-sectional, observational study using self-report questionnaires. Setting Participants were recruited from six Spinal Cord Injury Model System (SCIMS) centers across the United States (Craig Hospital, CO; Jefferson/Magee Rehabilitation Hospital, PA; Kessler Rehabilitation Center, NJ: University of Miami, FL; The Shirly Ryan Ability Lab, IL; Shepherd Center, GA). Interventions Not applicable. Participants Men and women (N=28) with tetraplegia were enrolled in the study between November 2012 and January 2015. Main Outcome Measure Participants completed self-report questionnaires focused on their DPS usage and mechanical ventilation, as well as their experiences and satisfaction with the DPS. Results DPS is a well-tolerated and highly successful device to help people living with SCI who are dependent on Ventilators achieve Negative Pressure, Ventilator-free breathing. A small percentage of participants reported complications including broken pacing wires and surgery to replace or reposition wires. Conclusions This study provides insight into the usage patterns of DPS and both the potential Negative and positive effects that DPS can have on the life of the user. Knowledge gained from this study can provide a foundation for further discussion about the benefits and potential risks of using a DPS to inform a person's decision to pursue a DPS implant.
Bikker I.g. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Optimizing Mechanical Ventilation by Bedside Lung Monitoring Systems in Critically ill Patients
__Abstract__ Since the original description of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the Lancet by Ashbaugh et al. in 1967 numerous studie, 2015Co-Authors: Bikker I.g.Abstract:__Abstract__ Since the original description of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the Lancet by Ashbaugh et al. in 1967, numerous studies have aimed to improve mechanical ventilation in order to prevent the associated Ventilatorinduced lung injury (VILI). In 2000, the landmark study of the ARDSnet group demonstrated that the application of tidal volumes of 6 ml/kg body weight resulted in a reduced mortality rate. This is now widely implemented as ‘protective ventilation’, not only in ARDS patients, but also in mechanically ventilated patients on both the operation room and the intensive care unit (ICU). Descriptions of ‘assisted’ ventilation can be found over the centuries. The first reports of Negative and positive Pressure mechanical ventilation appeared in the early 1800s. In those days, the Negative Pressure Ventilator was the modality most frequently used. This was first described in 1838 by John Dalziel, a Scottish physician. The patient was placed in sitting position in an airtight box, with only the head left outside. Subsequently, air was manually pumped in and out of the box to change the Pressure within the box and in the patient’s thoracic cage, thereby expanding the lungs while the patient was ab
Bikker Ido - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Optimizing Mechanical Ventilation by Bedside Lung Monitoring Systems in Critically ill Patients
Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2015Co-Authors: Bikker IdoAbstract:markdownabstract__Abstract__ Since the original description of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the Lancet by Ashbaugh et al. in 1967, numerous studies have aimed to improve mechanical ventilation in order to prevent the associated Ventilatorinduced lung injury (VILI). In 2000, the landmark study of the ARDSnet group demonstrated that the application of tidal volumes of 6 ml/kg body weight resulted in a reduced mortality rate. This is now widely implemented as ‘protective ventilation’, not only in ARDS patients, but also in mechanically ventilated patients on both the operation room and the intensive care unit (ICU). Descriptions of ‘assisted’ ventilation can be found over the centuries. The first reports of Negative and positive Pressure mechanical ventilation appeared in the early 1800s. In those days, the Negative Pressure Ventilator was the modality most frequently used. This was first described in 1838 by John Dalziel, a Scottish physician. The patient was placed in sitting position in an airtight box, with only the head left outside. Subsequently, air was manually pumped in and out of the box to change the Pressure within the box and in the patient’s thoracic cage, thereby expanding the lungs while the patient was able to breathe room air. In 1928, the first iron lung was introduced by Drinker and was further improved in the following decades, and then widely used during the polio epidemics from the 1930s to 1960s. During this period, entire wards of patients were ventilated with these devices. Even prototypes of entire Negative Pressure operation rooms were designed. However, the equipment was very large, patients were difficult to reach, and effective ventilation with high airway Pressure and application of positive endexpiratory airway Pressure (PEEP) was not possible
Jeffrey Berliner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
long term follow up of individuals with Ventilator dependent high tetraplegia managed with diaphragmatic pacing systems
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2021Co-Authors: Kimberley R Monden, Jennifer Coker, Susan Charlifue, Stephanie J Bennett, Christina Draganich, David Coons, Ralph J Marino, Jeffrey BerlinerAbstract:Abstract Objective To explore participants’ experiences after implantation of a diaphragmatic pacing system (DPS). Design Cross-sectional, observational study using self-report questionnaires. Setting Participants were recruited from six Spinal Cord Injury Model System (SCIMS) centers across the United States (Craig Hospital, CO; Jefferson/Magee Rehabilitation Hospital, PA; Kessler Rehabilitation Center, NJ: University of Miami, FL; The Shirly Ryan Ability Lab, IL; Shepherd Center, GA). Interventions Not applicable. Participants Men and women (N=28) with tetraplegia were enrolled in the study between November 2012 and January 2015. Main Outcome Measure Participants completed self-report questionnaires focused on their DPS usage and mechanical ventilation, as well as their experiences and satisfaction with the DPS. Results DPS is a well-tolerated and highly successful device to help people living with SCI who are dependent on Ventilators achieve Negative Pressure, Ventilator-free breathing. A small percentage of participants reported complications including broken pacing wires and surgery to replace or reposition wires. Conclusions This study provides insight into the usage patterns of DPS and both the potential Negative and positive effects that DPS can have on the life of the user. Knowledge gained from this study can provide a foundation for further discussion about the benefits and potential risks of using a DPS to inform a person's decision to pursue a DPS implant.
Stephanie J Bennett - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
long term follow up of individuals with Ventilator dependent high tetraplegia managed with diaphragmatic pacing systems
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2021Co-Authors: Kimberley R Monden, Jennifer Coker, Susan Charlifue, Stephanie J Bennett, Christina Draganich, David Coons, Ralph J Marino, Jeffrey BerlinerAbstract:Abstract Objective To explore participants’ experiences after implantation of a diaphragmatic pacing system (DPS). Design Cross-sectional, observational study using self-report questionnaires. Setting Participants were recruited from six Spinal Cord Injury Model System (SCIMS) centers across the United States (Craig Hospital, CO; Jefferson/Magee Rehabilitation Hospital, PA; Kessler Rehabilitation Center, NJ: University of Miami, FL; The Shirly Ryan Ability Lab, IL; Shepherd Center, GA). Interventions Not applicable. Participants Men and women (N=28) with tetraplegia were enrolled in the study between November 2012 and January 2015. Main Outcome Measure Participants completed self-report questionnaires focused on their DPS usage and mechanical ventilation, as well as their experiences and satisfaction with the DPS. Results DPS is a well-tolerated and highly successful device to help people living with SCI who are dependent on Ventilators achieve Negative Pressure, Ventilator-free breathing. A small percentage of participants reported complications including broken pacing wires and surgery to replace or reposition wires. Conclusions This study provides insight into the usage patterns of DPS and both the potential Negative and positive effects that DPS can have on the life of the user. Knowledge gained from this study can provide a foundation for further discussion about the benefits and potential risks of using a DPS to inform a person's decision to pursue a DPS implant.
