2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2010.12.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predictors of non-invasive ventilation tolerance in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
22
1
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
2
22
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…[3][4][5][6]18 Although Aboussouan et al 3 found that NIV tolerance in subjects with ALS was higher with PC-CMV, the findings of the present study, using only VC-CMV NIV, show a rate of tolerance of 92%, similar to the best results in the literature. In previous studies focusing on a heterogeneous population including neuromuscular subjects, VC-CMV NIV was associated with more gastrointestinal adverse effects, 19,20 mainly flatulence, although no differences between the 2 ventilator modes in overall acceptability have been reported.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…[3][4][5][6]18 Although Aboussouan et al 3 found that NIV tolerance in subjects with ALS was higher with PC-CMV, the findings of the present study, using only VC-CMV NIV, show a rate of tolerance of 92%, similar to the best results in the literature. In previous studies focusing on a heterogeneous population including neuromuscular subjects, VC-CMV NIV was associated with more gastrointestinal adverse effects, 19,20 mainly flatulence, although no differences between the 2 ventilator modes in overall acceptability have been reported.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Seated erect Forced Vital Capacity (FVC), nocturnal oxymetry and blood gas analysis were used as indexes of respiratory function, whereas the severity of dysphagia was evaluated through the one-hundred milliliter water swallow test [3]. When necessary, a PEG device was placed and/or a NIV was initiated [3,23], according to standard management procedures [24]. Disease progression was evaluated through two clinimetric rating scales: i) the Appel ALS Rating Scale (AARS) and ii) the revised ALS functional rating scale (ALSFRS-R) [19,20].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When the subscore was 8/8, the subject was classified as having non-bulbar ALS or the pure spinal form at NIV initiation. 15,19,20 We also used the saliva subcomponent of the ALSFRS-R (with a total score of 12) and decided arbitrarily and a priori that a score of Յ 9/12 corresponded to bulbar form at NIV initiation. Respiratory status was assessed from dyssomnia, paradoxical breathing, and pulmonary function test results.…”
Section: Clinical Datamentioning
confidence: 99%