The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Inspiratory Pressure Support Prevents Diaphragmatic Fatigue during Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation
Abstract
Persistent inability to tolerate discontinuation from mechanical ventilation is frequently encountered in patients recovering from acute respiratory failure. We studied the ability of inspiratory pressure support, a new mode of ventilatory assistance, to promote a nonfatiguing respiratory muscle activity in eight patients unsuccessful at weaning from mechanical ventilation. During spontaneous breathing, seven of the eight patients demonstrated electromyographic signs of incipient diaphragmatic fatigue. During ventilation with pressure support at increasing levels, the work of breathing gradually decreased (p less than 0.02) as well as the oxygen consumption of the respiratory muscles (p less than 0.01), and electrical signs suggestive of diaphragmatic fatigue were no longer present. In addition, intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure was progressively reduced. For each patient an optimal level of pressure support was found (as much as 20 cm H2O), identified as the lowest level maintaining diaphragmatic activity without fatigue. Above this level, diaphragmatic activity was further reduced and untoward effects such as hyperinflation and apnea occurred. When electrical diaphragmatic fatigue occurred, the activity of the sternocleidomastoid muscle was markedly increased, whereas it was minimal when the optimal level was reached. We conclude that in patients demonstrating difficulties in weaning from the ventilator: (1) pressure support ventilation can assist spontaneous breathing and avoid diaphragmatic fatigue (pressure support allows adjustment of the work of each breath to provide an optimal muscle load); (2) clinical monitoring of sternocleidomastoid muscle activity allows the required level of pressure support to be determined to prevent fatigue.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Brochard, L., Rauss, A., Benito, S., Conti, G., Mancebo, J., Rekik, N., Gasparetto, A., & Lemaire, F. (1994) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/ajrccm.150.4.7921460 · Cited by 1,122
Self-citationAntonelli, M., Conti, G., Rocco, M., Bufi, M., De Blasi, R. A., Vivino, G., Gasparetto, A., & Meduri, G. U. (1998) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199808133390703 · Cited by 1,014
Antonelli, M., Conti, G., Esquinas, A., Montini, L., Maggiore, S. M., Bello, G., Rocco, M., Maviglia, R., Pennisi, M. A., Gonzalez-Diaz, G., et al. (2007) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.ccm.0000251821.44259.f3 · Cited by 533
Umbrello, M., Formenti, P., Longhi, D., Galimberti, A., Piva, I., Pezzi, A., Mistraletti, G., Marini, J. J., & Iapichino, G. (2015) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0894-9 · Cited by 343
Acute effects of inspiratory pressure support during exercise in patients with COPD
van 't Hul, A., Gosselink, R., Hollander, P., Postmus, P., & Kwakkel, G. (2004) · European Respiratory Journal · doi:10.1183/09031936.03.00016903 · Cited by 79
Metadata
- Authors
- Brochard, L., Harf, A., Lorino, H., & Lemaire, F.
- Venue
- American Review of Respiratory Disease
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1989-02
- Volume
- 139
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 513-521
- ISSN
- 0003-0805 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1984409344
- Cited by
- 630
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 29.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Inspiratory Pressure Support Prevents Diaphragmatic Fatigue during Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm/139.2.513
- The paper
- Brochard, L., Harf, A., Lorino, H., & Lemaire, F. (1989). Inspiratory Pressure Support Prevents Diaphragmatic Fatigue during Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation. American Review of Respiratory Disease. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm/139.2.513
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.