Phrenic pacing compared with mechanical ventilation.

STUDY DESIGN

Comparable case series.

OBJECTIVES

High-cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) may disrupt the ability to breathe sufficiently. To restore respiration a phrenic nerve pacer can be implanted. The aims of this study were to describe the use of phrenic nerve pacing in tetraplegics in Denmark and compare the users with a population of ventilator dependent tetraplegics.

SETTING

Clinics for Spinal Cord Injuries, and Respiratory Centre East, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

METHODS

Nine tetraplegic individuals who had implantation of a phrenic nerve pacer and 16 home mechanical ventilator dependent tetraplegics met the inclusion criteria. Data were retrieved from medical records and a structured follow-up interview with seven individuals from each group.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found when comparing age at injury, time since injury, length of hospitalization, incidence of pneumonia, number of pneumonia hospitalizations, number of tracheal suctions, speech quality and activities of daily living or quality of life. On the Short Form Health Survey (SF36) mental health summary the median for both users of phrenic nerve pacing and users of mechanical ventilation was one s.d. above the mean of a standard population.

CONCLUSIONS

Nine people have had a phrenic nerve pacer implanted. They do not significantly differ from a group of home mechanical ventilator dependent tetraplegics on a number of performance measures, but both groups seem to have better quality of life than a standard population.