ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01815554Updated Jan 31, 2017

Follow up Study of Diaphragm Pacing for Patients With High Tetraplegia

An observational study in Tetraplegia and Spinal Cord Injury, sponsored by Craig Hospital. Completed at 1 site in United States. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2017-01-31.

Sponsored by Craig Hospital · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Case-only
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
31
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This is an observational longitudinal study designed to identify and describe long term outcomes for patients with high tetraplegia who use a Diaphragmatic Pacing System (DPS). As this is not a randomized or experimental study, no specific hypotheses are proposed. The data collected will enable us to answer the following research questions:

  1. What are the patterns of long-term DPS use (hours per day using DPS, changes in DPS stimulus parameters, abandonment of DPS and related reasons).
  2. What mechanical problems have DPS users encountered (system failure, repairs needed)?
  3. What are the frequency of and reasons for rehospitalization following DPS implant?
  4. What levels of care are needed at home to manage the DPS?
  5. How do DPS users feel about the system (satisfaction, comfort, vocalization, taste, swallowing)?
Read the detailed description

Ventilatory dependent high tetraplegia is a relatively rare but devastating condition. Review of National Spinal Cord Injury Database statistics show that only 3.6% of patients with tetraplegia are ventilator dependent at one year post injury.1 A subset of individuals who are ventilatory dependent in the long term and have upper motor neuron paralysis of the diaphragm are candidates for electrophrenic respiration (EPR) which can create inspiratory function through electrical stimulation of the phrenic nerves, resulting in diaphragmatic contraction. The use of this technology in ventilatory dependent tetraplegia was first described almost 40 years ago with a pacing system using cuff electrodes surgically placed around the phrenic nerve in the neck.2 The concept of EPR via minimally invasive laparoscopically placed diaphragmatic electrodes was first reported in 2002.3 This new Diaphragmatic Pacing System (DPS) had the distinct advantage of requiring less invasive surgery for electrode implantation compared to the phrenic cuff electrode system which required surgical exploration of the neck. In some settings, the DPS system has been implanted as an outpatient surgery. The DPS had a potential disadvantage however in that, unlike the traditional EPR system, the stimulating electrode leads are externalized posing an infection risk and the electrodes are attached to a moving muscle creating a risk for dislodgement. Once the system achieved FDA Humanitarian Use Device (HUD) exemption status in 2008, there was adoption of the Diaphragm Pacing System (DPS) among a number of SCI centers as a treatment option for patients with ventilatory dependent high tetraplegia. Reporting of long-term outcomes of DPS in the SCI population is limited to a 2009 report authored by the system inventor on 50 patients with average follow-up of 2.0 ± 1.5 years (median 1.6 years, range 0.5-8.0 years).4 The six SCIMS centers participating in this module research propose to collect long-term follow-up data on DPS patients implanted and/or followed at their centers since 2007. This project will enable the reporting of independent long-term utilization, effectiveness, satisfaction, durability and safety outcomes of this innovative technology.

02

Conditions studied

  • Tetraplegia
  • Spinal Cord Injury

Keywords

  • Tetraplegia
  • Spinal Cord Injury
  • Ventilator
  • Diaphragmatic Pacing System
03

In context

Quadriplegia

194 studies on the registry are indexed under Quadriplegia; 71 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 31 is close to the median of 31 across 24 observational studies indexed under Quadriplegia.

Browse Quadriplegia studies →

Lead sponsor

Craig Hospital is the lead sponsor of 38 studies on the registry; 11 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

All individuals implanted with DPS since 2003 who are being followed at one of the 6 collaborating study sites, including individuals who undergo DPS implantation during the funding cycle through October of 2014. Currently, there are approximately 60 individuals who comprise the existing clinical cohort of eligible participants. Individuals who are implanted during the funding cycle also will be eligible for study inclusion.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients previously incurring a traumatic spinal cord injury resulting in high tetraplegia
  • Patients implanted with DPS

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Implementation of DPS prior to 2003
05

Study design

Observational model
Case-only
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
31 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • DPS Cohort

    All patients implanted with a DPS within the past 5 years at one of 6 collaborating sites will be included. Patients will be interviewed as they cross their 1st, 3rd, 5th or 7th anniversary with the DPS.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Long-term utilization, effectiveness, satisfaction, durability and safety of implanted Diaphragmatic Pacing Systems

    Patients implanted with a DPS within the past 5 years will be included in this study. Telephone or in-person interviews will be conducted with the above individuals as they cross their 1st, 3rd, 5th, or 7th anniversary with the DPS system. All individuals are expected to complete at least 2 interviews during the study period.

    Time frame: 1 year anniversary of original implemenation date

  2. Long-term utilization, effectiveness, satisfaction, durability and safety of implanted Diaphragmatic Pacing Systems

    Patients implanted with a DPS within the past 5 years will be included in this study. Telephone or in-person interviews will be conducted with the above individuals as they cross their 1st, 3rd, 5th, or 7th anniversary with the DPS system. All individuals are expected to complete at least 2 interviews during the study period.

    Time frame: 3 year anniversary of original implemenation date

  3. Long-term utilization, effectiveness, satisfaction, durability and safety of implanted Diaphragmatic Pacing Systems

    Patients implanted with a DPS within the past 5 years will be included in this study. Telephone or in-person interviews will be conducted with the above individuals as they cross their 1st, 3rd, 5th, or 7th anniversary with the DPS system. All individuals are expected to complete at least 2 interviews during the study period.

    Time frame: 5 year anniversary of original implemenation date

  4. Long-term utilization, effectiveness, satisfaction, durability and safety of implanted Diaphragmatic Pacing Systems

    Patients implanted with a DPS within the past 5 years will be included in this study. Telephone or in-person interviews will be conducted with the above individuals as they cross their 1st, 3rd, 5th, or 7th anniversary with the DPS system. All individuals are expected to complete at least 2 interviews during the study period.

    Time frame: 7 year anniversary of original implemenation date

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Craig Hospital
    Englewood, Colorado 80113, United States
08

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 31, 2017, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01815554
Lead sponsor
Craig Hospital
Collaborators
U.S. Department of Education
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Mar 21, 2013
Start date
Jan 2013
Primary completion
Apr 2016
Completion
Apr 2016
Last update
Jan 31, 2017

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2017. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion