Completed FDA feasibility trial of surgically placed temporary diaphragm pacing electrodes: A promising option to prevent and treat respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: Etiologies contributing to failure to wean from mechanical ventilation (MV) are multiple, resulting in morbid and costly outcomes. Diaphragm pacing (DP) is used in spinal cord injury to replace MV. Temporary DP could be utilized in acute respiratory failure to reduce MV. METHODS: A prospective FDA feasibility trial evaluated temporary DP electrodes implanted in each hemi-diaphragm during a subject's primary procedure. Objectives included: ability to provide ventilation, stability analysis with diaphragm electromyography, and adverse event monitoring. RESULTS: Twelve patients underwent successful implantation via median sternotomy, laparoscopy or laparotomy. Electrode stimulation exceeded ideal tidal volumes by an average of 37% (0%-95%) confirming ability to prevent atrophy. Daily electromyography confirmed stability of placement and was useful in evaluating hypoventilation. There were no complications and all 48 study electrodes remained intact until complete removal. CONCLUSION: This trial demonstrates ease of placement, removal, functionality and safety of temporary DP electrodes which therapeutically decreases diaphragm atrophy.

Ethical management of conflict of interest: proposed standards for academic surgical societies.

BACKGROUND: A significant increase in industry support of professional medical associations coupled with data suggesting that gifts from industry have significant clinical influence have prompted calls from the Institute of Medicine and physician leaders to identify and manage conflicts of interest that stem from financial support of professional medical associations by industry. STUDY DESIGN: A joint task force of members appointed by the Association for Academic Surgery and the Society of University Surgeons was convened in July 2009. Recommendations were developed regarding management of all potential conflicts of interest that can arise within the context of an academic surgical society, with specific focus on relationships with industry. Task force members reached consensus around each recommendation and the guidelines were subsequently adopted by the Executive Councils of both societies. RESULTS: The committee identified 4 primary areas of need for transparent and definitive management of conflict of interest: 1) individual society activities, including general budget support, society endorsements, and journal affiliation; 2) individual personnel conflicts such as society leadership and standards for disclosure of conflict; 3) meeting activities including budgetary support, program committee associations, and abstract review process; and 4) foundation support and research and travel awards. The resulting guidelines aim to protect the societies and their membership from undue bias that may undermine the credibility and mission of these associations. CONCLUSIONS: Policy guidelines to mitigate conflict of interest are necessary to protect the integrity of the work of academic surgical societies and their fiduciary duty to members and patients. Guidelines created and adopted by the Association for Academic Surgery and Society of University Surgeons form an effective model for academic surgical societies and their members.