Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 1603  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (1,153 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 » Methods
 » Results
 » Discussion
 » Conclusions
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded27    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Table of Contents    
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 70  |  Issue : 8  |  Page : 282-287

Comparison of Different Tidal Volumes for Ventilation in Patients with an Acute Traumatic Cervical Spine Injury

1 Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care, Max Super Speciality Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, India
2 Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
3 Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care, Cardio-Neuro Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, New Delhi, India
4 Microbiology, Lab Medicine, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
5 Department of Neurosurgery, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
6 Department of Biostatistics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, New Delhi, India

Date of Submission07-Jul-2022
Date of Decision09-Sep-2022
Date of Acceptance17-Sep-2022
Date of Web Publication11-Nov-2022

Correspondence Address:
Ashish Bindra
Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care, Room No 118, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre (JPNATC), All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.360926

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 

Background: There is scant literature comparing high tidal volume ventilation (HTV) over low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation in acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI).
Objective: The aim of this prospective randomized controlled parallel-group, single-blinded study was to compare the effect of two different tidal volumes (12–15 mL/kg and 6–8 mL/kg) in CSCI on days to achieve ventilator-free breathing (VFB), PaO2/FIO2 ratio, the incidence of complications, requirement of vasopressor drugs, total duration of hospital stay, and mortality.
Materials and Methods: We enrolled patients with acute high traumatic CSCI admitted to the neurotrauma intensive care unit within 24 h of injury, requiring mechanical ventilation. Participants were randomized to receive either HTV, 12–15 mL/kg (group H) or LTV, 6–8 mL/kg (group L) tidal volume ventilation.
Results and Conclusions: A total of 56 patients, 28 in each group were analyzed. Patient demographics and injury severity were comparable between the groups. VFB was achieved in 23 and 19 patients in groups H and L, respectively. The median number of days required to achieve VFB was 3 (2, 56) and 8 (2, 50) days, P = 0.33; PaO2: FIO2 ratio was 364.0 ± 64 and 321.0 ± 67.0, P = 0.01; the incidence of atelectasis was 25% and 46%, P = 0.16, respectively, in group H and group L. The hemodynamic parameters and the vasopressor requirement were comparable in both groups. There was no barotrauma. The duration of hospital stay (P = 0.2) and mortality (P = 0.2) was comparable in both groups. There was no significant difference in days to achieve ventilator-free breathing with HTV (12–15 mL/kg) ventilation compared to LTV (6–8 mL/kg) ventilation in acute CSCI. The PaO2:FiO2 ratio was higher with the use of 12–15 mL/kg. No difference in mortality and duration of hospital stay was seen in either group.

Keywords: Cervical spine injury, high tidal volume, low tidal volume, ventilation, ventilator-free breathing, weaning
Key Message: There is no significant difference in days to achieve ventilator-free breathing, mortality, and duration of hospital stay with HTV (12–15 mL/kg) ventilation compared to LTV (6–8 mL/kg) ventilation in acute CSCI.

How to cite this article:
Sengupta D, Bindra A, Kapoor I, Mathur P, Gupta D, Khan MA. Comparison of Different Tidal Volumes for Ventilation in Patients with an Acute Traumatic Cervical Spine Injury. Neurol India 2022;70, Suppl S2:282-7

How to cite this URL:
Sengupta D, Bindra A, Kapoor I, Mathur P, Gupta D, Khan MA. Comparison of Different Tidal Volumes for Ventilation in Patients with an Acute Traumatic Cervical Spine Injury. Neurol India [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Mar 21];70, Suppl S2:282-7. Available from: https://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2022/70/8/282/360926

Cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI) imposes a huge health care burden worldwide. It entails a myriad of complications, and ventilator dependence is one of the most critical.[1] High tidal volume (HTV) ventilation for weaning following CSCI is described to recruit distal airways, stimulate surfactant production, and improve oxygenation.[2] In acute CSCI, there is flaccid muscle tone and increased abdominal compliance, and peak pressure (PPeak) rarely exceeds 30 cmH2O, which decreases the chances of barotrauma.[3] The literature points toward the advantages of HTV (>20 mL/kg) ventilation in SCI.[4],[5],[6] However, with the introduction of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) net guidelines, there is an ever-increasing trend advocating low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation (6–8 mL/kg) due to its lung-protective effects.[7] The disadvantages of LTV ventilation include the requirement of heavy sedation, increased atelectasis, and patient–ventilator asynchrony among others.[8] Moreover, its efficacy on weaning in patients with acute CSCI has not been described.

Thus, we planned this randomized controlled trial to see the effect of two different tidal volumes; Group H (12–15 mL/kg) and group L (6–8 mL/kg) on days to achieve ventilator-free breathing in acute CSCI. Secondary objectives were to see the PaO2/FIO2 (partial pressure of oxygen: the fraction of inspired oxygen) ratio, the incidence of barotrauma, atelectasis, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ARDS, requirement of vasopressor drugs, total duration of hospital stay, and mortality in each group.

 » Methods Top

Following the approval from the Institute Ethics Committee (IECPG/349/7/2018) and registration in Clinical Trial Registry India (CTRI) (CTRI/2018/10/016028), informed consent was obtained from the patient/nearest kin. This prospective randomized controlled parallel-group, single-blinded study was conducted on patients between 18 and 65 years of age with acute traumatic CSCI admitted within 24 h of injury to the neurotrauma intensive care unit (NICU) from September 2018 to April 2019.

All patients admitted to NICU received standard treatment as per the hospital protocol and in accordance with advanced trauma life support guidelines.[9] The level and severity of SCI were determined at the time of admission according to the 2019 revision of the international standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (ISNCSCI).[10] Patients with an associated head or chest injury, history of aspiration, chronic cardiopulmonary disease, obstructive sleep apnea, and body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 were excluded. Patients were randomized into two groups using a computer-generated block randomization chart with four patients per block [Figure 1]. Opaque sealed envelopes were used for group allocation. Group H was ventilated with 12–15 mL/kg (IBW) tidal volume and group L received 6–8 mL/kg (IBW) tidal volume.
Figure 1: Consort flow diagram

Click here to view

Ideal body weight (IBW) was calculated using Broca's index.[11] Height was estimated using arm span.[12] Ideal body weight was utilized to calculate the ventilator tidal volume. Ventilation was initiated on an assist mode for a period of 6 h using a decelerating ramp flow pattern and a tidal volume between 9–10 mL/kg, respiratory rate 10–12 breaths/min, titrated to arterial carbon dioxide levels between 35 and 40 mmHg. The lowest possible FIO2 was selected that achieved SPO2 of ≥95%. The respiratory rate was adjusted to keep the arterial blood gas (ABG) pH between 7.30 and 7.45 at all times. ABG was done at least twice at 8 am and 4 pm daily as per the ICU protocol. If the desired pH was not achieved, then ABGs were repeated as needed until it was achieved. Baseline parameters were noted that included tidal volume, peak pressure, mean arterial pressure (MAP), peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SPO2), heart rate (HR), and PaO2/FIO2 ratio.

Tidal volume was gradually increased by 1 mL/kg every 2 h in Group H with continuous monitoring of peak pressures. At any point in time, if the peak pressures exceeded 40 cm H2O, no further increase in tidal volumes was made and the tidal volume achieved in mL/kg was noted. If the peak pressures remained <40 cm H2O, then the tidal volumes were increased to ≥12 mL/kg (IBW) with a maximum set at ≤15 mL/kg (IBW). Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was set at 5 cm H2O for both groups. Tidal volume was gradually decreased by 1 mL/kg every 2 h in group L with monitoring for respiratory acidosis, until the tidal volume achieved was ≤8 mL/kg (IBW) with a respiratory rate (RR) ≤30 cycles per min and pH ≥7.30. Acidosis was monitored and the ABG analysis was done as per the protocol mentioned above. Further decreases in tidal volume were made if there were no respiratory acidosis with a minimum set at 6 mL/Kg (IBW).

Intravenous midazolam 0.03–0.2 mg/kg/h and fentanyl 20–50 μg/h was titrated to the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) with a target score of zero.[13] A daily sedation-free period of 2 h was given for neurological assessment. Routine care of patients included salbutamol nebulization, chest physiotherapy, cough assist device, abdominal binder, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, and incentive spirometry. Patients were observed until they were discharged from the hospital after VFB was achieved or in-hospital mortality, whichever was earlier. The number of days to achieve VFB was measured from the day of onset of mechanical ventilation in the NICU.

Daily tidal volume, Ppeak, HR, MAP, PaO2:FIO2ratio, SPO2, PaCO2, base excess, and RASS scores were recorded. Each parameter was noted three times daily and the average of the three values was obtained for each day the patient was dependent on a ventilator. The mean of the average values for each day was then taken for the final analysis. The requirement of vasopressor drugs, tracheostomy, and incidence of barotrauma, atelectasis, VAP, and ARDS was noted.

ARDS was defined by Berlin's criteria.[14] If the patient in group H developed ARDS, the ventilation strategy was changed to lung-protective ventilation as per the ARDS net guidelines and the patient was provided LTV ventilation (group L). Atelectasis was defined based on chest X-rays.[15] VAP was Defined as per the Centre for Control of Communicable Diseases criteria.[16] Pulmonary barotrauma included complications such as pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and subcutaneous emphysema.[17]

Pressure support ventilation (PSV) or progressive ventilator-free breathing (PVFB) on T-piece was used for weaning.[18],[19] Weaning was commenced when the patient met the following criteria: vital capacity: >10 mL/Kg (IBW), respiratory rate: 10–12 breaths/minute, minute ventilation: <10 L/min, PaO2 >80 mmHg with FIO2 at ≤0.4, PaCO2 <45 mmHg, rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) <105, clear or improving chest radiographs, stable vital signs and no complications such as fever, sepsis, hemodynamic disturbance, ABG abnormalities, and altered mentation. VFB was considered to be achieved when the patient comfortably tolerated 24 h without the requirement of mechanical ventilation.

The sample size was calculated based on the study done by Peterson et al.[5] To detect a difference of 21 days between HTV and LTV with 80% power at a 5% level of significance with a two-sided test, we studied 28 patients in each group. IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21 for Windows® was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to present epidemiological data. Continuous normally distributed variables (age, BMI, HR, MAP) were expressed as the mean and standard deviation, and skewed data (VFB achieved, atelectasis onset, vasopressor support duration, and Hospital stay) were expressed as median and interquartile ranges (IQR). Categorical variables were expressed as n (%). The student's t-test was used to compare continuous data and Mann-Whitney U-test was used for skewed data. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact tests. A P value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. The Kaplan Meier survival probability was estimated for the two groups through the KM curve, the dependent variable considered was the occurrence of death and time was the total duration of ventilation. Log-rank test was applied to test significance.

 » Results Top

A total of 56 patients were randomized. [Figure 1]. Demographic variables and injury severity in each group are shown in [Table 1]. The results are described as an intention to treat analysis. Days to achieve ventilator-free breathing in group H and group L were a median of 3 (2,56) days and 8 (2,50) days, respectively (P = 0.33). [Figure 2]. Days to achieve ventilator-free breathing and other study variables are described in [Table 2]. A total of 23 (82%) patients in group H and 19 (68%) patients in group L achieved VFB on or before 30 days (P = 0.01).
Table 1: Comparison of group characteristics

Click here to view
Figure 2: VFB achieved and hospital stay in median days. (a) Ventilator-free breathing was achieved in the two groups. (b) Hospital stay in median days in the two groups

Click here to view
Table 2: Comparison of achievement of weaning, the incidence of atelectasis, Ppeak, hemodynamic support, NICU stay and Hospital stay in the two groups

Click here to view

The ventilator parameters, incidence of complications, and patient hemodynamics are described in [Table 2]. A total of 4 (14%) patients in group H and 10 (36%) in group L developed ARDS (P = 0.12). The overall mortality was observed in 14 patients out of 56 patients, 5 (18%) patients in group H and 10 (36%) in group L. Mortality was high in AIS-A patients with 10 deaths (5 in group H and 5 in group L), one patient died each in AIS B, C and D. The level of injury was C1-C4 in 3 patients and C5-6 in 11 patients who died. The cause of death was sepsis in 13 patients and sudden cardiac arrest in 1 patient. There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups [Figure 3].
Figure 3: K-M survival estimate between intervention groups and mortality considering time to event

Click here to view

 » Discussion Top

There is a trend toward using LTV (6 mL/kg) in critical illness after ARDS network investigators reported significantly lower mortality and higher VFB associated with its use.[5],[7] The applicability of these findings in patients with acute SCI is variable.[6] HTV 20 mL/kg has been reported to facilitate earlier weaning in CSCI in rehabilitation centers.[3],[5],[20],[21] Most of the existing literature on this topic is retrospective, and only a few prospective studies have addressed this issue in patients with acute CSCI injury.[5],[6] A study in sub-acute traumatic tetraplegics using high (20 mL/kg) versus standard tidal volumes (10 mL/kg) by Fenton et al.[6] saw no difference in median days to wean (median 14.5 days and 14 days). However, Hatton et al.[22] in their retrospective cohort study in patients with acute CSCI reported that HTV was associated with higher ventilator dependence (82% vs. 38%, P < 0.001) which was attributed to a higher level and completeness (AIS-A & AIS-B) of injury, older age, and earlier year of care This prospective study in patients with acute CSCI and evaluated the utility of LTV (6–8 mL/kg) and HTV (12–15 mL/kg) ventilation and found them comparable in time to achieve VFB. We used tidal volumes far lesser than 20 mL/kg and saw its effect on weaning and vital parameters. Our results are similar to those observed by Fenton et al[6] in sub-acute traumatic tetraplegics. However, the patients we studied were of acute CSCI (within 24 h of admission). We looked into the feasibility and advantages of either type of ventilation strategy on respiratory physiology, hospital stay, and mortality. Though LTV has been known to offer advantages in patients with ARDS, no distinct advantage of the strategy was seen in patients with acute CSCI.

We found a relatively higher PaO2:FIO2 in group H than the group L. A PaO2:FIO2 ratio of <300 on day 3 (P = 0.03) has been reported as a predictor of prolonged mechanical ventilation (>7 days).[23] We could not find any advantage of higher PaO2:FIO2 in terms of time to wean in group H. HTV, 15–20 mL/kg has been advocated for the prevention and early resolution of atelectasis in SCI.[5],[6],[23],[24],[25] HTV is said to increase surfactant production, promote the recruitment, and prevent airway collapse and complications such as barotrauma and altered hemodynamics are less in SCI, especially tetraplegics due to the flaccidity of abdominal muscles and increased compliance.[3],[5],[6],[26] No barotrauma was reported in our study.

Studies done on tetraplegics found that the incidence of pneumonia post-admission was similar with both low and HTV.[5],[6] However, a study done on acute CSCI reported an increased incidence of VAP in patients ventilated with HTV as compared to standard ventilation (68% vs. 44%, P = 0.06).[21] Factors associated with an increased incidence of VAP included a higher level of injury, complete injury, older age, male gender, delayed intubation, and the presence of chest trauma.[22],[27] We found a higher incidence of VAP in patients being ventilated with LTV (32%) as compared to patients being ventilated with HTV (11%), (P = 0.05). The reason could not be exactly defined but may be due to lesser atelectasis associated with higher tidal volumes. The reported incidence of ARDS is similar in high HTV and LTV ventilation (1 vs. 0, P = 0.36)[5] and is similar to our study, (14% vs. 36%, P = 0.12).

In a cohort study in acute CSCI patients, higher tracheostomy rates were reported in the HTV group as compared to the standard tidal volume (86% vs. 63%, P = 0.05).[22] In the acute phase, the need for tracheostomy is dependent upon the ability to achieve weaning and development of pulmonary complications besides the level and severity of the injury. Because all these variables were comparable in both our groups, so was the rate of tracheostomy.

There is a paucity in the literature on the effect of high and LTV ventilation on the requirement of vasopressors in acute CSCI patients. The reported incidence of vasopressor requirement is up to 67% in patients with cervical spinal cord injury in a study from the same institute.

Our study showed comparable vasopressor requirements in both groups. The mean arterial pressures were also comparable in both groups.

Patients with SCI have prolonged hospitalization.[28],[29],[30] Prolonged mechanical ventilation, type of injury, and use of vasopressors have been reported as predictors of mortality in the literature.[31],[32] Mortality was high in AIS-A patients with 10 deaths out of 14 deaths. The level of injury was C1-C4 in 3 patients and C5-6 in 11 patients. Our data point toward the severity of injury to be a more important predictor of mortality as compared to the level in patients with cervical spinal cord injury.

We did not use tidal volume up to 20 mL/kg; rather, our study looked into the utility of two common ventilation strategies to achieve VFB in patients with acute spinal cord injury. Though we did not find any statistical difference in the achievement of VFB in either group, incidence of atelectasis, barotrauma, or vasopressor requirement with the use of either ventilation strategy, the findings were clinically relevant. Notable clinically beneficial effects of HTV were low incidence of VAP and atelectasis, whereas the difference in the incidence of ARDS and in-hospital mortality was better explained by the severity of injury in these subsets of patients. Better oxygenation was achieved with the use of higher tidal volumes but then it did not translate to any other advantage. Though our study highlights the utility of two ventilation strategies in real-life scenarios, it has its limitations. We included patients with variable AIS scores. We matched the severity scores (AIS A, B and AIS C, D) between the two groups, but due to the small sample size, sub-categorizing the level of injury (C1-6) and AIS (A-D) was not possible. Patients were not followed after achieving VFB and therefore, re-intubation data and subsequent ventilator dependence are not known. Multicentric prospective studies with higher sample sizes are warranted to further establish the above findings.

 » Conclusions Top

Our study found that both high (12–15 mL/kg) and LTV (6–8 mL/kg) ventilation can be used for Ventilation in acute CSCI to achieve VFB. However, oxygenation (PaO2:FIO2) was significantly higher with HTV. The incidence of pulmonary complications, such as VAP and ARDS, length of hospital stay, and vasopressor support, were similar in both groups. Further prospective multicenter studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups are warranted to assess the advantage of one modality over the other.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 » References Top

Berlly M, Shem K. Respiratory management during the first five days after spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 2007;30:309-18.  Back to cited text no. 1
Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine. Respiratory management following spinal cord injury: A clinical practice guideline for health-care professionals. J Spinal Cord Med 2005;28:259-93.  Back to cited text no. 2
Wong SL, Shem K, Crew J. Specialized respiratory management for acute cervical spinal cord injury: A retrospective analysis. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2012;18:283-90.  Back to cited text no. 3
Futier E, Constantin JM, Paugam-Burtz C, Pascal J, Eurin M, Neuschwander A, et al. A trial of intraoperative low-tidal-volume ventilation in abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med 2013;369:428-37.  Back to cited text no. 4
Peterson WP, Barbalata L, Brooks CA, Gerhart KA, Mellick DC, Whiteneck GG. The effect of tidal volumes on the time to wean persons with high tetraplegia from ventilators. Spinal Cord 1999;37:284-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
Fenton JJ, Warner ML, Lammertse D, Charlifue S, Martinez L, Dannels-McClure A, et al. A comparison of high vs standard tidal volumes in ventilator weaning for individuals with sub-acute spinal cord injuries: A site-specific randomized clinical trial. Spinal Cord 2016;54:234-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, Brower RG, Matthay MA, Morris A, Schoenfeld D, Thompson BT, et al. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1301-8.  Back to cited text no. 7
Writing Group for the PReVENT Investigators, Simonis FD, Serpa Neto A, Binnekade JM, Braber A, Bruin KCM, et al. Effect of a low vs intermediate tidal volume strategy on ventilator-free days in intensive care unit patients without ARDS: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018;320:1872-80.  Back to cited text no. 8
Galvagno SM Jr, Nahmias JT, Young DA. Advanced Trauma Life Support® Update 2019: Management and applications for adults and special populations. Anesthesiol Clin 2019;37:13-32.  Back to cited text no. 9
ASIA and ISCoS International Standards Committee. The 2019 revision of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI)-What's new?. Spinal Cord 2019;57:815-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
Alejandro WS, Ortega Sofia V, Pablo WA. Validation of the Broca index as the most practical method to calculate the ideal body weight. J Clin Investig Stud 2018;1:1–4.  Back to cited text no. 11
Venkataraman R, Ranganathan L, Nirmal V, Kameshwaran J, Sheela CV, Renuka MV, et al. Height measurement in the critically ill patient: A tall order in the critical care unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2015;19:665-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Rowe K, Fletcher S. Sedation in the intensive care unit. Contin Educ Anaesthesia, Crit Care Pain 2008;8:50–5.  Back to cited text no. 13
Pneumatikos I, Papaioannou V. The new Berlin definition: What is, finally, the ards?. Pneumon 2012;25:365–8.  Back to cited text no. 14
Woodring JH, Reed JC. Radiographic manifestations of lobar atelectasis. J Thorac Imaging 1996;11:109-44.  Back to cited text no. 15
P Gunasekera, A Gratrix. Ventilator-associated pneumonia, BJA Education 2016;16:198-202.  Back to cited text no. 16
Ioannidis G, Lazaridis G, Baka S, Mpoukovinas I, Karavasilis V, Lampaki S, et al. Barotrauma and pneumothorax. J Thorac Dis 2015;7(Suppl 1):S38-43.  Back to cited text no. 17
Füssenich W, Hirschfeld Araujo S, Kowald B, Hosman A, Auerswald M, Thietje R. Discontinuous ventilator weaning of patients with acute SCI. Spinal Cord 2018;56:461-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
Galeiras Vázquez R, RascadoSedes P, Mourelo Fariña M, Montoto Marqués A, Ferreiro Velasco ME. Respiratory management in the patient with spinal cord injury. Biomed Res Int 2013;2013:168757.  Back to cited text no. 19
Padman R, Alexander M, Thorogood C, Porth S. Respiratory management of pediatric patients with spinal cord injuries: Retrospective review of the duPont experience. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2003;17:32-6.  Back to cited text no. 20
Zakrasek EC, Nielson JL, Kosarchuk JJ, Crew JD, Ferguson AR, McKenna SL. Pulmonary outcomes following specialized respiratory management for acute cervical spinal cord injury: A retrospective analysis. Spinal Cord 2017;55:559-65.  Back to cited text no. 21
Hatton GE, Mollett PJ, Du RE, Wei S, Korupolu R, Wade C, et al. High tidal volume ventilation is associated with ventilator-associated pneumonia in acute cervical spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 2021;44:775-81.  Back to cited text no. 22
Leelapattana P, Fleming JC, Gurr KR, Bailey SI, Parry N, Bailey CS. Predicting the need for tracheostomy in patients with cervical spinal cord injury. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012;73:880-4.  Back to cited text no. 23
Wallbom A, Naran B, Thomas E. Acute ventilator management and weaning in individuals with high tetraplegia. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2005;10:1–7.  Back to cited text no. 24
Rothen HU, Sporre B, Engberg G, Wegenius G, Hedenstierna G. Re-expansion of atelectasis during general anaesthesia: A computed tomography study. Br J Anaesth 1993;71:788-95.  Back to cited text no. 25
Berney S, Bragge P, Granger C, Opdam H, Denehy L. The acute respiratory management of cervical spinal cord injury in the first 6 weeks after injury: A systematic review. Spinal Cord 2011;49:17-29.  Back to cited text no. 26
Agostinello J, Battistuzzo CR, Batchelor PE. Early clinical predictors of pneumonia in critically ill spinal cord injured individuals: A retrospective cohort study. Spinal Cord 2019;57:41-8.  Back to cited text no. 27
Conradsson D, Phillips J, Nizeyimana E, Hilliar C, Joseph C. Risk indicators of length of acute hospital stay after traumatic spinal cord injury in South Africa: A prospective, population-based study. Spinal Cord 2019;57:763-9.  Back to cited text no. 28
Liebscher T, Niedeggen A, Estel B, Seidl RO. Airway complications in traumatic lower cervical spinal cord injury: A retrospective study. J Spinal Cord Med 2015;38:607-14.  Back to cited text no. 29
Franceschini M, Bonavita J, Cecconi L, Ferro S, Pagliacci MC; Italian SCI Study Group. Traumatic spinal cord injury in Italy 20 years later: Current epidemiological trend and early predictors of rehabilitation outcome. Spinal Cord 2020;58:768-77.  Back to cited text no. 30
Mishra RK, Goyal K, Bindra A, Singh GP, Kumar N, Sokhal N, et al. An investigation of the prolonged requirement (>7 days) of vasopressors in cervical spinal cord injury patients-a retrospective analysis. Spinal Cord Ser Cases 2021 N 2;7:96.  Back to cited text no. 31
Chamberlain JD, Meier S, Mader L, von Groote PM, Brinkhof MW. Mortality and longevity after a spinal cord injury: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroepidemiology 2015;44:182-98.  Back to cited text no. 32


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]

  [Table 1], [Table 2]


Print this article  Email this article
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow