Respiratory support in intensive care has undergone a significant transformation over time, evolving from simple manual techniques to sophisticated, intelligent devices. The initial use of negative pressure ventilation devices such as the “iron lung” in the early 20th century marked the beginning of this journey. A major turning point occurred during the poliomyelitis outbreak in Copenhagen in 1952, when positive pressure ventilation was successfully employed, laying the foundation for modern intensive care practices.
From the 1960s onward, volume- and pressure-controlled mechanical ventilators were developed, offering greater control over respiratory support. The introduction of microprocessor-based ventilators in the 1980s enhanced the precision and safety of mechanical ventilation. By the 2000s, lung-protective strategies—such as the use of low tidal volumes and appropriate levels of PEEP—had become widely adopted.
Over time, non-invasive ventilation techniques (such as BiPAP and CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy have also become increasingly prevalent. The COVID-19 pandemic further underscored the critical role of ventilators in the management of acute respiratory failure. Today, respiratory support is delivered via advanced technologies that incorporate artificial intelligence, allow for individualized settings, and prioritize lung-protective strategies.
Respiratory Support in Intensive Care
Respiratory support in intensive care refers to the set of invasive and non-invasive methods employed to ensure adequate oxygenation and carbon dioxide elimination in patients experiencing respiratory failure. It is indicated in cases where the patient is unable to maintain sufficient spontaneous breathing or when it is necessary to reduce the work of breathing. The primary objectives of respiratory support are to optimize gas exchange, protect the lungs, and sustain life until the underlying condition improves.
Types of Respiratory Support
Respiratory support is broadly classified into two main categories:
1. Non-invasive respiratory support: This form of support is delivered through a face mask or nasal cannula without the need for endotracheal intubation. Common methods include high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy and non-invasive mechanical ventilation (e.g., BiPAP or CPAP).
2. Invasive respiratory support: This approach requires the placement of an endotracheal tube into the trachea. It involves mechanical ventilation or, in more advanced cases, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), particularly in severe or refractory respiratory failure.
Indications for Respiratory Support
Respiratory support is indicated in the following conditions:
Hypoxemic respiratory failure (PaO₂ < 60 mmHg): such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), pneumonia, and COVID-19.
Hypercapnic respiratory failure (PaCO₂ > 45 mmHg): including exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and neuromuscular diseases.
Cardiogenic pulmonary edema
Postoperative respiratory depression
Trauma, sepsis, and metabolic disorders
What Is a Mechanical Ventilator?
A mechanical ventilator is a medical device that delivers air to the lungs using positive pressure to support or completely take over the breathing process in patients with respiratory failure. It is used in intensive care units, operating rooms, and emergency departments to temporarily maintain respiratory function in critically ill patients. Mechanical ventilation mimics natural breathing by meeting the body’s oxygen demands, regulating carbon dioxide removal, and allowing the respiratory muscles to rest.
Primary Objectives of Mechanical Ventilation
To correct hypoxemia (increase oxygen levels)
To reduce hypercapnia (eliminate excess carbon dioxide)
To decrease the work of breathing
To prevent complications through lung-protective ventilation strategies
To support spontaneous breathing and prepare the patient for weaning from the ventilator
How Is Mechanical Ventilation Used?
1) Preparation and Patient Selection
Mechanical ventilation is typically initiated in the following conditions:
Acute respiratory failure
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)
Exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Systemic conditions such as sepsis, trauma, or brain injury
Postoperative respiratory depression
The patient is intubated by inserting an endotracheal tube into the trachea, which is then connected to the mechanical ventilator.
2) Mode Selection
The mechanical ventilator can be set to operate in various modes:
Controlled Mode (AC – Assist/Control): The device initiates and controls every breath; the patient does not contribute to ventilation.
Supported Mode (SIMV – Synchronized Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation): The patient can breathe spontaneously between mandatory breaths; the ventilator provides support as needed.
Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV): The ventilator delivers pressure support with each spontaneous breath initiated by the patient.
During mechanical ventilation, the following parameters are closely observed:
SpO₂ (oxygen saturation)
End-tidal CO₂ (etCO₂)
Tidal volume and minute ventilation
Respiratory mechanics (compliance, resistance)
Alarm systems (e.g., high pressure, low volume, disconnection)
4) Complications and Precautions
Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury (VILI): To prevent volutrauma, barotrauma, and atelectasis, low tidal volumes and appropriate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) settings should be employed.
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP): Preventive measures such as meticulous oral care and maintaining the head of the bed at a 30–45° elevation are essential.
Hemodynamic Effects: High levels of positive pressure can reduce venous return and consequently affect cardiac output.
Diaphragm Atrophy: Prolonged use of full-support ventilation modes may lead to respiratory muscle weakness due to disuse atrophy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is mechanical ventilation the same as oxygen therapy? No. Oxygen therapy is typically administered via simple face masks or nasal cannulas. Mechanical ventilation, on the other hand, provides assisted breathing using positive pressure in patients with impaired lung function; it represents a more advanced form of respiratory support.
Does mechanical ventilation always require intubation? No. Non-invasive mechanical ventilation (e.g., BiPAP, CPAP) can be delivered through masks without the need for intubation. However, invasive mechanical ventilation usually requires endotracheal intubation.
Is dependence on a mechanical ventilator permanent? No. Mechanical ventilation is intended as a temporary support. Once the patient’s respiratory muscles regain strength and gas exchange normalizes, a weaning process is initiated to gradually discontinue ventilator support.
Is mechanical ventilation painful? No, the process of mechanical ventilation itself is not painful. However, the presence of an endotracheal tube and the experience of being on the device can cause discomfort. Therefore, patients are often administered sedation and, when necessary, muscle relaxants.
Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders represent a significant global health burden, contributing to millions of outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and premature deaths annually. The Global Burden of Disease Study (1) reported that digestive diseases were responsible for over 8 million deaths worldwide in 2020, with colorectal cancer ranking among the top three causes of cancer mortality.
Furthermore, chronic inflammatory conditions like inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) affect more than 10 million people globally, showing a rising incidence in newly industrialized countries (2). Other major GI disorders, such as peptic ulcers, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), small bowel tumors, and obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, necessitate timely and accurate diagnostics to reduce morbidity and prevent life-threatening complications (3, 4).
In this context, early detection and precise localization of GI pathology are critical for guiding therapy and improving patient outcomes. Conventional endoscopy, particularly esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy, has long been the diagnostic mainstay. These techniques facilitate direct mucosal visualization, biopsy acquisition, and a range of therapeutic interventions, including polypectomy, variceal banding, and hemostasis (5).
Despite their proven effectiveness, conventional methods are invasive, require sedation, and can be associated with patient discomfort, adverse events, and limited accessibility, particularly in under-resourced or rural settings (6, 7). These challenges frequently reduce adherence to recommended screenings, especially among elderly and pediatric patient populations.
To address these limitations, capsule endoscopy (CE) was introduced in the early 2000s as a minimally invasive diagnostic tool primarily for small bowel evaluation (8). This capsule, roughly the size of a large vitamin pill, contains a miniature camera, a light source, a battery, and a wireless transmitter. This sophisticated design allows it to capture up to 100,000 images as it naturally passes through the digestive tract (9).
Initially used to investigate obscure GI bleeding, CE’s indications have expanded to include Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, small bowel neoplasms, and more (10, 11). Unlike traditional endoscopy, CE requires no sedation or hospital admission, making it an ideal modality for ambulatory, pediatric, and fragile patient populations (12).
However, it lacks the ability to perform biopsies, deliver therapies, or be actively steered, and it carries risks such as capsule retention, particularly in patients with strictures (13).
In recent years, technological innovations have significantly expanded the capabilities of both conventional and capsule endoscopy. CE has evolved through the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) for image interpretation, magnetically guided navigation, self-propulsion mechanisms, and tactile sensors.
These advancements have transformed CE from a passive camera into a semi-intelligent diagnostic system (14-16). Concurrently, conventional endoscopic platforms now incorporate high-definition video, narrow-band imaging (NBI), confocal laser endomicroscopy, and augmented guidance systems, which collectively improve diagnostic accuracy and procedural safety (17).
These parallel developments—one driving towards non-invasive smart diagnostics and the other towards advanced therapeutic precision—necessitate a structured comparison. As healthcare transitions toward patient-centered and precision-based approaches, clinicians must carefully weigh factors such as diagnostic yield, patient comfort, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility when selecting between these modalities.
This review presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of capsule and conventional endoscopy technologies, evaluating their mechanisms, clinical applications, limitations, and future trajectories. Special attention is given to their distinct roles in small bowel bleeding, colorectal cancer screening, IBD diagnosis, and upper GI evaluation, all within the evolving context of digital gastroenterology.
Conventional Endoscopy – History, Modalities, Clinical Roles, and Limitations
Conventional endoscopy remains the cornerstone of modern gastrointestinal (GI) diagnostics and therapeutics, offering unparalleled access for direct visualization, targeted tissue sampling, and real-time intervention. Its development over the past century parallels some of the most transformative advancements in internal medicine.
This section outlines the historical evolution, procedural taxonomy, technical innovations, clinical utility, and inherent procedural risks, with particular attention to geriatric vulnerability and sedation-related concerns.
Historical Development and Scope
The evolution of GI endoscopy began with rigid esophagoscopes in the early 20th century, progressing rapidly after the introduction of fiberoptic technology in the 1950s. The invention of the video endoscope in the 1980s marked a critical inflection point, enabling real-time imaging, comprehensive documentation, and post-procedure analysis (18). These developments not only revolutionized mucosal visualization but also significantly expanded indications from mere diagnosis to minimally invasive interventions.
Over time, the scope of conventional endoscopy broadened to include several advanced submodalities, each targeting specific anatomical or pathological niches. These now form an integrated procedural spectrum vital to various medical specialties, including gastroenterology, hepatology, oncology, cardiology, and pancreatobiliary medicine.
Taxonomy of Conventional Endoscopic Modalities
Table 1: Conventional Endoscopic Modalities
Procedure
Target Area
Primary Applications
EGD
Esophagus, stomach, duodenum
Ulcers, varices, dysphagia, malignancy
Colonoscopy
Entire colon, terminal ileum
Cancer screening, IBD, bleeding
ERCP
Biliary and pancreatic ducts
Obstruction, stones, strictures
EUS
GI wall, pancreas, lymph nodes
Tumor staging, FNA, cyst drainage
TNE
Nasal approach to proximal upper GI
Tolerated diagnostics in frail patients
TEE
Posterior heart via esophagus
Valve disease, atrial thrombus, endocarditis
DBE/Push Enteroscopy
Mid–small bowel
Obscure bleeding, biopsy, therapy
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)
EGD is a first-line diagnostic and therapeutic procedure for evaluating upper GI symptoms such as dyspepsia, upper GI bleeding, and dysphagia. It facilitates biopsy of suspicious lesions, treatment of bleeding ulcers or varices, foreign body retrieval, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement. Biopsies are also routinely performed for conditions like gastritis, Barrett’s esophagus, and Helicobacter pylori infection (5).
Colonoscopy
As the primary tool for colorectal cancer screening, colonoscopy allows for real-time detection and removal of polyps, assessment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and stricture dilation. It remains the sole modality validated for both diagnosis and definitive therapy in colon-based pathology (6).
ERCP utilizes a side-viewing duodenoscope combined with fluoroscopy to visualize and treat biliary or pancreatic ductal disorders, including choledocholithiasis, strictures, and bile leaks. While magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) has largely superseded diagnostic ERCP, therapeutic ERCP remains essential for stone removal, sphincterotomy, and stent placement (5).
Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)
EUS combines high-frequency ultrasound with endoscopy, enabling submucosal and extramural evaluation of GI and hepatopancreatic structures. It is particularly valuable for tumor staging, lymph node biopsy, and pancreatic cyst characterization. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) facilitates cytological diagnosis of malignancy with minimal invasiveness (19).
Transnasal Endoscopy (TNE)
TNE offers unsedated access to the upper GI tract via a narrower transnasal scope. Although image quality and suction capacity are comparatively lower, it is ideal for elderly or anticoagulated patients where sedation poses an increased risk (7).
Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE)
Though primarily a cardiology procedure, TEE involves endoscopic ultrasound via the esophagus to visualize posterior cardiac anatomy—especially the atria, valves, and aortic arch—with high resolution. It is critical in the diagnosis of infective endocarditis, atrial thrombi, and valvular disorders (19).
Deep Enteroscopy (Push or Balloon-Assisted)
These methods extend diagnostic and therapeutic reach into the jejunum and ileum, regions largely inaccessible by conventional EGD or colonoscopy. While more invasive than capsule endoscopy, they enable biopsy and therapy, making them indispensable in select cases of obscure GI bleeding (10).
This section effectively details the aspects of conventional endoscopy, especially its limitations. It’s well-organized and presents a clear argument for the need for complementary tools.
Here’s a revised version, focusing on grammar, clarity, conciseness, and overall scientific tone, with explanations for the changes:
Anesthesia and Risk in Geriatric Patients
Conventional endoscopic procedures typically employ conscious sedation (e.g., midazolam, fentanyl) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). For advanced procedures like ERCP or TEE, or in patients with low pain tolerance, deep sedation or general anesthesia may be necessary.
However, sedation-related complications are significantly more frequent in geriatric populations. The aging process affects drug metabolism, and comorbidities such as cardiac insufficiency, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or cognitive impairment inherently increase procedural risk. For instance, Mahmud et al. (2021) reported that patients over 75 years experienced a 3.6-fold increase in sedation-related adverse events, including hypoxia, bradycardia, and delayed recovery (20).
Therefore, appropriate risk stratification is vital. In frail elderly patients, especially those undergoing screening rather than urgent intervention, capsule endoscopy may offer a lower-risk alternative (7, 12).
Clinical Applications: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Excellence
Conventional endoscopy offers both diagnostic precision and therapeutic versatility unmatched by non-invasive imaging.
Common Indications:
GI bleeding (variceal or non-variceal)
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) surveillance
Barrett’s esophagus screening
Colorectal cancer prevention
Evaluation of dysphagia, dyspepsia, and chronic diarrhea
Biliary/pancreatic duct evaluation (ERCP)
Tumor staging (EUS)
Therapeutic Functions:
Polypectomy and mucosal resection
Clip or thermal coagulation for bleeding
Stent placement in obstructive lesions
Dilation of benign strictures
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and cyst drainage
Limitations of Conventional Endoscopy
Despite its critical diagnostic and therapeutic utility, conventional endoscopy has notable limitations. One of the foremost challenges is its invasive nature, often necessitating intravenous sedation or general anesthesia. This carries an increased risk of cardiopulmonary complications, particularly among older adults and patients with multiple comorbidities (20). Sedation also requires post-procedure monitoring, extended recovery time, and substantial resource allocation.
Another significant constraint is limited access to the mid-small intestine, a region beyond the reach of both EGD and colonoscopy. This creates a diagnostic “blind spot” in evaluating conditions such as obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, mid-jejunal tumors, and isolated Crohn’s disease of the small bowel (10). While techniques like double-balloon enteroscopy can address this gap, they are technically demanding, time-consuming, and not widely available.
Psychological factors also contribute to reduced patient compliance, particularly in colorectal cancer screening. Fear of discomfort, anxiety about sedation, and embarrassment regarding the procedure can deter participation, especially among younger, asymptomatic individuals or those from culturally conservative backgrounds (6).
Additionally, conventional endoscopy is operator-dependent, with diagnostic yield and safety closely tied to the endoscopist’s skill, experience, and equipment quality. This variability can lead to missed lesions, particularly subtle or flat neoplasms.
While complication rates are relatively low, colonoscopy carries a 0.1–0.3% risk of perforation, and post-polypectomy bleeding remains a concern. For EGD, serious complications are rare but include aspiration, bleeding, and cardiac arrhythmias, especially in high-risk patients (7).
Finally, healthcare infrastructure disparities further limit access in low- and middle-income countries or rural regions, where trained personnel, high-end imaging platforms, and reprocessing systems may be lacking (2). These systemic limitations highlight the need for less invasive, scalable diagnostic alternatives, such as capsule endoscopy, in selected clinical settings.
Limitations of Conventional Endoscopy
Despite its strengths, conventional endoscopy has key limitations:
Invasiveness and sedation risks, particularly in older or comorbid patients.
Incomplete access to the mid-small bowel (a gap between EGD and colonoscopy).
Psychological barriers to screening (e.g., fear, anxiety, embarrassment).
Dependency on highly trained operators, leading to potential variability in diagnostic yield.
Procedure-related complications (e.g., perforation rate: ~0.1–0.3% for colonoscopy; rare for EGD but include aspiration, bleeding, and cardiac arrhythmias).
Limited accessibility in low-resource settings or rural hospitals (2).
Table 2: Comparison of Capsule Endoscopy vs. Conventional Endoscopy
Feature
Capsule Endoscopy (CE)
Conventional Endoscopy (C-EGD, Colonoscopy, etc.)
Invasiveness
Non-invasive (swallowed capsule)
Invasive (scope insertion via mouth or rectum)
Anesthesia/Sedation
Not required
Often required (IV sedation or MAC)
Diagnostic Reach
Small intestine, colon (with specific capsules), esophagus (via magnet guidance)
Upper GI (EGD), colon, duodenum; limited small bowel access
Therapeutic Capability
None (diagnostic only)
Full therapeutic tools (biopsy, polypectomy, dilation, stenting)
Visualization Quality
High-res images (frame-by-frame)
Real-time, dynamic high-res video with control
Procedure Control
Passive (natural peristalsis)
Active operator-controlled navigation
Risk Profile
Capsule retention (1–2%); incomplete transit
Sedation risks, perforation (0.1–0.3%), bleeding
Patient Comfort
Very high; no discomfort or prep (except for bowel cleansing)
Variable; discomfort, gas, sedation recovery time
Clinical Indications
Obscure GI bleeding, Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, small bowel tumors, pediatric/frail patients
Bleeding, ulcers, IBD, cancer screening, strictures, polyp management
Accessibility
Portable; outpatient-friendly; suitable for rural/limited settings
Requires extensive video analysis (30–60 min per case)
Real-time assessment and decision-making
Cost & Resource Use
Lower setup cost; higher interpretive time
Higher procedural cost but immediate intervention
Capsule Endoscopy – Technology, Workflow, Modalities, and Limitations
Capsule endoscopy (CE) represents one of the most significant innovations in gastrointestinal diagnostics over the last two decades. First introduced by Iddan et al. in 2000, this minimally invasive technique has enabled clinicians to visualize regions of the gastrointestinal tract that were historically difficult to access, particularly the small intestine (8).
Its development was primarily driven by the need to evaluate obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and small bowel diseases in patients for whom conventional endoscopy provided insufficient visualization or posed undue procedural risk.
Technological Design and Components
The capsule endoscope is a self-contained, swallowable device typically measuring approximately 11×26 mm and weighing under 5 grams. It incorporates a miniature complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) camera, a set of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for illumination, a wireless transmitter, an antenna, and a battery capable of continuous function for 8–12 hours (9). Modern designs may include:
Dual-lens systems for bi-directional viewing.
Adaptive frame rate to conserve battery life.
Onboard data storage or real-time transmission to external recorders.
Position-tracking and motion sensors for orientation.
These components enable CE to acquire 50,000–100,000 images per procedure, which are then transmitted to a data recorder worn externally by the patient. After capsule excretion (typically within 24–48 hours), the stored video is downloaded and reviewed by a trained physician using specialized software.
Workflow and Procedural Steps of Capsule Endoscopy
The CE process follows a standardized workflow:
Pre-procedure preparation involves overnight fasting and, in some cases, bowel preparation using polyethylene glycol. This step is particularly important for colon capsule endoscopy.
Capsule ingestion occurs in a clinical setting. No sedation is required, making CE highly suitable for elderly, pediatric, or medically fragile patients.
Transit and image acquisition rely entirely on natural peristalsis. The capsule traverses the GI tract passively, capturing images of the mucosa.
Data retrieval and interpretation happen post-procedure. The data recorder is returned, and the physician reviews the footage, often utilizing AI-assisted software to highlight potential abnormalities (21).
This approach facilitates remote, ambulatory diagnostics while avoiding the risks associated with sedation and scope insertion.
Types and Clinical Applications of Capsule Endoscopy
CE is available in several clinically specialized variants, each designed for specific anatomical regions and diagnostic purposes.
Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy (SBCE)
SBCE remains the most established and widely used CE platform. It is particularly valuable for evaluating:
Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding
Crohn’s disease
Small bowel tumors
Celiac disease
Iron-deficiency anemia
Studies report a diagnostic yield between 38% and 83%, with variations depending on the indication, preparation quality, and clinical setting (11).
Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE)
Colon capsules are larger, feature dual cameras, and possess wider visual fields. They are primarily used in:
Colorectal cancer screening, particularly for patients who decline or cannot tolerate conventional colonoscopy.
Cases of incomplete colonoscopies due to anatomical or procedural limitations.
Meta-analyses report 75–90% sensitivity for polyps ≥6 mm, with higher accuracy achieved in well-prepped colons (22).
Esophageal Capsule Endoscopy (ECE)
ECE enables rapid, high-resolution imaging of the esophagus and is primarily used to screen or monitor:
Barrett’s esophagus
Esophageal varices
Reflux esophagitis
ECE can be paired with magnetically guided navigation systems to overcome the limitations of passive motion and enhance targeted visualization (14).
Technological Innovations
Ongoing developments are transforming CE into a more dynamic and intelligent platform, including:
Magnetically guided capsule endoscopy: This technology uses external magnetic fields to control capsule position, enabling targeted examination of the stomach and esophagus (14).
Self-propelling robotic capsules: These capsules employ piezoelectric motors, shape memory alloys, or vibratory propulsion for enhanced mobility and prolonged gastric visualization (15).
Artificial Intelligence (AI): Algorithms powered by deep learning now assist in detecting ulcers, polyps, angioectasias, and inflammatory lesions, significantly reducing review time and increasing diagnostic yield (16).
Smart sensors: Newer prototypes include tactile and biosensor arrays capable of measuring pH, temperature, pressure, and various chemical signatures (17).
These enhancements aim to eventually allow for biopsy acquisition, therapeutic delivery, and real-time manipulation, thereby extending CE’s capabilities far beyond its current diagnostic-only paradigm.
Limitations and Challenges of Capsule Endoscopy
While capsule endoscopy (CE) offers numerous advantages in patient comfort, accessibility, and non-invasiveness, it remains fundamentally limited by its diagnostic-only nature, inherent technological constraints, and associated procedural risks. Recognizing these limitations is critical for determining its appropriate clinical application and when considering it as an alternative or adjunct to conventional endoscopy.
Lack of Therapeutic Capability
The most significant constraint of CE is its inability to perform real-time therapeutic interventions. Unlike conventional endoscopes, capsule platforms are currently incapable of:
Performing biopsies for histopathological diagnosis.
Executing hemostasis in gastrointestinal bleeding.
Removing polyps or foreign bodies.
Delivering localized drug therapy or placing stents.
Consequently, capsule endoscopy often functions as a first-line screening or visualization tool. Positive findings frequently necessitate follow-up conventional endoscopy for definitive treatment or confirmation (11).
Capsule Retention
Capsule retention, defined as the capsule remaining in the GI tract for over two weeks or failing to exit naturally, occurs in approximately 1–2% of cases. However, rates can significantly increase in patients with:
Known or suspected Crohn’s disease.
NSAID-induced strictures.
Small bowel tumors or adhesions.
Retention may lead to bowel obstruction and, in rare instances, requires surgical retrieval. The use of a patency capsule (biodegradable or dissolvable) is often recommended before CE in high-risk patients (13).
Incomplete Examination and Transit Failure
Successful capsule endoscopy depends on the capsule completing its transit through the area of interest—typically the entire small bowel—within its battery life. However, failure to reach the colon before battery depletion may result in incomplete studies, particularly in:
Patients with gastroparesis.
Those with delayed small bowel transit.
Cases where intestinal motility is impaired.
Incomplete visualization can compromise diagnostic yield, leading to false negatives or indeterminate studies that require repetition (11).
Limited Image Control and Field of View
Unlike conventional endoscopy, where the endoscopist can:
Steer and orient the scope.
Irrigate, aspirate, and insufflate.
Manipulate mucosal folds.
Capsule endoscopy is a passive modality, entirely dependent on natural peristalsis and gravity for movement and positioning. This can result in:
Missed lesions due to rapid transit.
Poor visualization from retained debris.
Difficulty precisely localizing pathology.
Although magnetically guided systems improve control in the esophagus and stomach, this technology is not yet universally available or standardized (14).
Interpretive Time and Reader Variability
A single capsule study generates up to 100,000 images, requiring:
30–60 minutes of detailed video review by a trained reader.
Significant reader fatigue and inter-observer variability, particularly for subtle findings like angioectasias or mucosal breaks.
Recent developments in AI-assisted image triage have reduced this burden, but a final diagnosis still requires human validation (21).
Cost, Access, and Reimbursement
While CE avoids the infrastructure and sedation-related costs of traditional endoscopy, it presents other financial barriers:
High device cost (capsule plus recording system).
Software licensing and data storage expenses.
Lack of universal insurance coverage in many countries.
Limited availability in rural or low-resource regions.
These issues can limit its adoption, especially outside tertiary care centers or in healthcare systems with fee-for-service reimbursement models.
Table 4. Summary of Key Limitations
Category
Limitation
Implication
Clinical
No therapeutic capability
Requires follow-up endoscopy
Safety
Capsule retention (1–2%)
Risk of obstruction; potential surgical retrieval
Diagnostic
Incomplete transit, poor localization
False negatives; missed pathology
Technical
No active steering or suction
Passive image capture limits precision
Logistical
Prolonged review time
Reader fatigue; interpretive variability
Economic
High capsule cost; limited reimbursement
Barriers to widespread adoption
Capsule endoscopy represents a major advance in GI diagnostics, particularly for small bowel pathology, non-invasive screening, and its utility in vulnerable patient populations. It provides a safe, comfortable, and effective method for internal visualization without the need for sedation or operator-dependent discomfort.
However, current limitations—including the absence of therapeutic functionality, the risk of capsule retention, and incomplete transit—restrict its universal application as a primary diagnostic modality. Thus, CE is best viewed as a complementary strategy that extends the reach of endoscopy into areas previously inaccessible or unsafe for conventional tools.
Table 4: Clinical Applications – Capsule vs Conventional Endoscopy
⚠️ Possible with esophageal capsule + magnetic guidance
✅ EGD with biopsy is standard
Esophageal varices
⚠️ Detected by ECE in cirrhotics
✅ EGD allows surveillance and banding
Polyp removal
❌ Not possible
✅ Colonoscopy enables resection
GI bleeding (active)
❌ Cannot intervene
✅ EGD or colonoscopy allows immediate therapy
Pancreatobiliary evaluation
❌ Not accessible
✅ ERCP/EUS required for ducts, stones, strictures
Tumor staging
❌ Not accurate
✅ EUS and biopsy essential
Stricture evaluation
⚠️ Risk of capsule retention
✅ Dilatation and biopsy via endoscope
Pediatric & frail patients
✅ Ideal for non-invasive imaging
⚠️ Sedation risk; limited tolerance
Future Directions and Innovations in Endoscopic Technology
Over the past two decades, gastrointestinal endoscopy has transitioned from a purely diagnostic tool to a technologically dynamic and increasingly patient-centered field. While conventional endoscopy continues to evolve with enhanced imaging and therapeutic capabilities, capsule endoscopy (CE) is on a parallel trajectory, increasingly bridging its diagnostic limitations through integration with robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), and sensor technology.
These developments suggest a future where the boundary between diagnostic and interventional platforms may become increasingly blurred, with profound implications for patient care, access, and global screening strategies.
AI-Assisted Image Interpretation
Artificial intelligence, particularly deep learning, is playing an increasingly central role in both conventional and capsule endoscopy. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have demonstrated accuracy rates approaching or even exceeding those of expert endoscopists for detecting various gastrointestinal lesions, including:
Colonic polyps
Ulcers and erosions
Angioectasias
Bleeding stigmata
In capsule endoscopy, AI-based systems now enable automated frame triage, prioritizing frames with suspected pathology. This can reduce review time from 30–60 minutes to under 10 minutes in some cases (21). For conventional endoscopy, real-time AI overlays can assist during live procedures by alerting endoscopists to missed lesions or guiding biopsy targeting (23).
These capabilities not only improve diagnostic efficiency but also enhance standardization, thereby reducing inter-observer variability—a critical goal in population-level screening programs.
Robotic and Magnetically Controlled Capsules
One of the key limitations of CE—the lack of control over navigation—is being actively addressed through magnetically guided systems and self-propelled capsules. Magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy (MCE), already in clinical use for gastric and esophageal evaluation, utilizes an external magnetic field to orient and steer the capsule with sub-centimeter precision (14). These advanced systems enable:
Extended imaging in the stomach, which typically lacks peristalsis-driven transit.
Targeted positioning for suspected lesions.
Potential for real-time video guidance instead of passive imaging.
Additionally, research into self-propelling capsules employs mechanisms such as:
Vibratory motors
Shape-memory alloys
Electromagnetic or fluidic actuation
These innovative devices promise controlled locomotion, retrograde movement, and the ability to “hover” in areas of interest, enabling future platforms to pause, re-image, or even biopsy specific lesions (15).
This is an excellent final section, effectively summarizing the exciting future of endoscopy and addressing important considerations. You’ve brought together all the threads of your research beautifully.
Here’s a revised version, with explanations for the changes, to enhance grammar, clarity, conciseness, and overall scientific tone:
Toward Therapeutic Capsule Endoscopy
Though still in prototype stages, the development of interventional capsule platforms is gaining significant momentum. These advancements include:
Biopsy-enabled capsules featuring micro-serrated cutting arms or spring-loaded needles.
Drug-delivery capsules capable of releasing medication at specific pH zones or based on chemical sensors.
Cautery-enabled microtools for treating angiodysplasia.
Tissue sampling via microneedles, guided by onboard AI or a remote operator interface.
Such advancements could position capsule endoscopy not just as a diagnostic tool, but as an autonomous or teleoperated intervention system, particularly in settings with limited access to conventional endoscopy.
Multi-sensor and Smart Diagnostic Capsules
Beyond visual imaging, future CE platforms are integrating biosensors capable of measuring:
pH
Temperature
Pressure
Glucose, lactate, or other metabolites
Microbiome and gut enzyme activity
These capabilities could expand CE’s role into functional GI diagnostics, such as evaluating gastroparesis, intestinal transit disorders, and even mucosal immune responses (17). When combined with AI-driven analysis, CE could provide not just anatomical, but also physiological and biochemical information, paving the way for multi-dimensional diagnostics.
Remote, Wireless, and Decentralized Screening
One of CE’s greatest untapped potentials lies in its ability to decentralize endoscopy—shifting diagnostics from hospitals to homes, rural clinics, or mobile care units. This trend is particularly significant in the context of:
As wireless transmission improves and cloud-based review systems mature, capsule endoscopy may integrate into tele-endoscopy frameworks, enabling image upload, AI triage, and remote physician oversight. This could potentially close access gaps in low-resource regions.
Ethical and Regulatory Considerations
As capsule systems become more autonomous and AI-driven, new regulatory challenges are emerging. Key issues include:
Data privacy and cybersecurity of wireless transmissions.
Ethical concerns surrounding overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and patient consent for algorithm-based decisions.
It is essential that innovation is accompanied by robust governance frameworks, ongoing validation trials, and integration into established clinical guidelines to ensure both safety and effectiveness.
The future of endoscopy is increasingly hybrid, intelligent, and decentralized. Capsule endoscopy is evolving beyond static imaging into an ecosystem of smart, responsive, and potentially interventional devices, augmented by robotic locomotion, biosensing, and artificial intelligence.
Concurrently, conventional endoscopy is incorporating real-time diagnostic augmentation and robotic tools for enhanced therapeutic precision. Together, these convergent paths point toward an era of adaptive, patient-personalized, and data-rich gastrointestinal care—one that may soon redefine the meaning of endoscopy itself.
Table 5. Technological Innovations and AI Applications in Endoscopic Platforms
Innovation Area
Capsule Endoscopy (CE)
Conventional Endoscopy (C-EGD, Colonoscopy)
Clinical Value
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
✅ Deep learning for image triage, bleeding/polyp detection (e.g., CNNs)
✅ Real-time AI overlay for polyp detection and characterization
🚧 Prototypes in development (e.g., microneedles, biopsy arms)
✅ Fully established functionality
May bring CE closer to therapeutic parity
Edge Computing / Onboard AI
✅ AI processing inside capsule (e.g., lesion scoring, compression)
🚧 Under development for scope-assisted cloud AI
Improves latency, enables offline diagnosis, field deployability
Biosensor Integration
✅ pH, pressure, temperature, chemical and microbiome sensors in prototypes
❌ Rarely used; some pH monitoring exists (e.g., Bravo capsule)
Expands diagnostic capability to functional and biochemical GI disorders
3D Mucosal Reconstruction
🚧 Capsule-based stereo imaging under investigation
✅ Enhanced scopes with NBI, chromoendoscopy, 3D imaging
Improves precision of lesion characterization and localization
Remote Diagnostics / Telemedicine
✅ Cloud upload and asynchronous AI review possible
✅ Possible with connected hospital platforms
Enables decentralized diagnostics in remote/rural areas
References
GBD 2020 Gastrointestinal Disease Collaborators. (2021). The global burden of gastrointestinal disorders. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 6(3), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30245-3
Kaplan, G. G., & Windsor, J. W. (2021). The global emergence of inflammatory bowel disease: The evolution of epidemiology. Gastroenterology, 160(1), 39–51.e2. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.063
Sung, J. J., Kuipers, E. J., & El-Serag, H. B. (2009). Systematic review: The global incidence and prevalence of peptic ulcer disease. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 29(9), 938–946. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.03960.x
Mangipudi, U. K., Dhooria, B., Acharya, R., & Reddy, S. (2025). Endless bleeding: Elusive diagnosis via capsule imaging. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-025-09041-8
Cotton, P. B., & Williams, C. B. (2020). Practical gastrointestinal endoscopy: The fundamentals (7th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Rex, D. K., & Imperiale, T. F. (2023). Patient experience in colonoscopy: Results of a national survey. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 118(4), 678–685. https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000002183
Leung, W. K., & Chan, F. K. (2020). Endoscopy in the elderly: Balancing benefit and risk. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology, 44-45, 101692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2020.101692
Iddan, G., Meron, G., Glukhovsky, A., & Swain, P. (2000). Wireless capsule endoscopy. Nature, 405(6785), 417. https://doi.org/10.1038/35013021
Pennazio, M., Rondonotti, E., & de Franchis, R. (2008). Capsule endoscopy in neoplastic lesions of the small bowel. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 14(33), 5245–5253. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.14.5245
Ejtehadi, F., Dadashpour, N., & Bordbar, M. (2025). Diagnostic yield of capsule vs balloon enteroscopy in small bowel disorders. SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-025-01889-1
Sidhu, R., Sanders, D. S., & McAlindon, M. E. (2012). The role of video capsule endoscopy in celiac disease. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America, 22(4), 869–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giec.2012.07.007
Barkin, J. S., & Friedman, S. (2002). Wireless capsule endoscopy: Patient acceptance and safety. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 56(4), 621–624. https://doi.org/10.1067/mge.2002.128967
Cave, D., Legnani, P., de Franchis, R., & Lewis, B. S. (2005). ICCE consensus for capsule retention. Endoscopy, 37(10), 1065–1067. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-870071
Shiha, M., Finta, A., & Madácsy, L. (2025). Magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy versus esophagogastroduodenoscopy: Diagnostic accuracy for upper GI lesions. Gut, 74(Suppl 1), A8.2.
Yan, Y., Wang, Z., Tian, J., & Guo, R. (2025). Self-propelled capsule robot dynamics in the small intestine. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 92(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063694
Krumb, H. J., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2025). eNCApsulate: A neural cellular automata model for precision diagnosis on capsule endoscopy platforms. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21562
Feldman, M., Friedman, L. S., & Brandt, L. J. (2010). Sleisenger and Fordtran’s gastrointestinal and liver disease (9th ed.). Saunders.
Hahn, R. T., & Abraham, T. (2014). Transesophageal echocardiography in clinical practice. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 63(19), 1951–1964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.540
Mahmud, N., Cohen, J., Tsourides, K., & Berzin, T. M. (2021). Risk of sedation-related complications in older adults undergoing GI endoscopy. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 19(7), 1357–1365.e2.
da Costa, A. M. M. P., Saraiva, M. M., Cardoso, P., et al. (2025). AI-driven capsule endoscopy in IBD. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2025.03.006
Spada, C., Pasha, S. F., Gross, S. A., et al. (2021). Accuracy of capsule colonoscopy in polyp detection: A meta-analysis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 93(5), 1105–1114.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.08.045
Urban, G., Tripathi, P., Alkayali, T., et al. (2018). Deep learning localizes and identifies polyps in real time with 96% accuracy in screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology, 155(4), 1069–1078.e8. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.06.037
Neonatal respiratory failure remains a primary cause of admission to neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) worldwide. Premature birth, affecting an estimated 15 million neonates annually globally, is strongly correlated with pulmonary immaturity and an elevated risk of respiratory complications (1). In such cases, respiratory support is frequently indispensable for reducing morbidity and improving survival outcomes.
Common causes of neonatal respiratory insufficiency include respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), transient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN), pneumonia, and apnea of prematurity. Without timely intervention, these conditions can lead to rapid clinical deterioration and significant long-term sequelae, such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), or mortality.
The physiological immaturity of the neonatal lung significantly contributes to the high incidence of respiratory complications in preterm and term neonates with perinatal distress. In premature infants, incomplete alveolarization and insufficient surfactant production often lead to alveolar collapse.
These factors, coupled with a compliant chest wall, underdeveloped respiratory musculature, and increased oxygen demands, create a scenario where neonates are prone to atelectasis, hypoventilation, and respiratory failure (2). Consequently, mechanical or non-invasive ventilatory support is frequently initiated shortly after birth to stabilize gas exchange and reduce the work of breathing.
Over the past few decades, the field of neonatal respiratory support has evolved dramatically. Mechanical ventilation, once the cornerstone of neonatal respiratory care, has increasingly been supplanted by lung-protective strategies designed to minimize the risks of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI).
Innovations such as volume-targeted ventilation (VTV), high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) have significantly improved synchronization and pressure control. Parallel advances in monitoring technology, including electrical impedance tomography (EIT) and artificial intelligence (AI)-based ventilator analytics, now offer real-time, individualized feedback for optimized care (3).
This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current strategies and innovations in neonatal respiratory support. It covers the physiological basis for respiratory assistance in neonates, details conventional and emerging ventilatory approaches, and explores the implications of novel technologies.
Additionally, it discusses the persistent challenges encountered in low-resource settings and outlines future directions for research and clinical practice. Through this review, we seek to inform clinicians, researchers, and policymakers about the current state and future potential of neonatal respiratory care worldwide.
Physiology and Pathophysiology in Neonatal Respiratory
The transition from intrauterine to extrauterine life presents substantial respiratory challenges for neonates, particularly those born prematurely. In utero, gas exchange occurs via the placenta, with the fetal lungs remaining fluid-filled and relatively inactive.
At birth, this abruptly changes, necessitating rapid clearance of lung fluid, the onset of spontaneous breathing, and functional pulmonary circulation. The success of this transition is highly dependent on lung maturity, surfactant availability, and coordinated cardiorespiratory function.
Lung development progresses through several distinct stages: embryonic, pseudoglandular, canalicular, saccular, and alveolar. Alveolarization—the formation of functional gas-exchange units—begins around 36 weeks of gestation and continues postnatally.
In preterm infants, especially those born before 32 weeks, alveolar and capillary networks are insufficiently developed to support efficient gas exchange (2). This underdevelopment contributes to poor lung compliance, increased airway resistance, and ineffective ventilation.
One of the most critical deficits in preterm lung function is the lack of surfactant, a lipoprotein complex that reduces surface tension and prevents alveolar collapse. Surfactant deficiency leads to decreased lung compliance, atelectasis, and impaired oxygenation—the hallmark features of Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS).
Additionally, the neonatal chest wall is highly compliant, offering little resistance to inward recoil, and the diaphragm is relatively underpowered, further limiting ventilation efficiency.
Several pathophysiological conditions arise from these anatomical and functional limitations. Transient Tachypnea of the Newborn (TTN) is common in term and near-term infants and is caused by delayed absorption of fetal lung fluid.
In contrast, apnea of prematurity results from the immaturity of brainstem respiratory centers, leading to episodic cessation of breathing. While the underlying mechanisms differ for these conditions, both may necessitate some form of respiratory assistance, whether invasive or non-invasive.
In addition to pulmonary immaturity, hemodynamic and systemic challenges—such as persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), or sepsis—can compound respiratory compromise. Hypoxemia and acidosis further increase pulmonary vascular resistance, worsening oxygenation and potentially causing right-to-left shunting.
Collectively, these factors explain why many neonates, especially those born prematurely or with perinatal complications, require respiratory support. Understanding the unique physiology and vulnerabilities of the neonatal lung is essential for selecting the appropriate support strategy and optimizing outcomes.
Condition
Gestational Age Affected
Pathophysiology
Clinical Features
CXR Findings
Initial Management
Need for Respiratory Support
Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS)
<32 weeks (mostly preterm)
Surfactant deficiency → alveolar collapse → poor gas exchange
Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a critical intervention for neonates with life-threatening respiratory failure, often due to surfactant deficiency, structural lung immaturity, or systemic complications such as sepsis or persistent pulmonary hypertension.
While IMV can be life-saving, it is associated with significant risks, necessitating careful selection of ventilatory modes, parameters, and weaning strategies to optimize outcomes and reduce harm (4, 5).
Invasive Ventilation Modes and Strategies
Several ventilatory modes are used in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), each tailored to specific clinical needs:
Assist-Control Ventilation (A/C): Delivers preset breaths, which can be initiated by the neonate or the ventilator. While maintaining adequate minute ventilation, this mode carries an increased risk of asynchrony and volutrauma (lung injury caused by excessive tidal volumes).
Synchronized Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation (SIMV): Synchronizes mandatory breaths with spontaneous respiratory efforts, improving patient comfort and reducing the risk of hyperventilation.
Volume-Targeted Ventilation (VTV): Automatically adjusts pressure to deliver consistent tidal volumes. Studies indicate that VTV reduces the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), hypocarbia, and intraventricular hemorrhage compared to pressure-limited modes (6, 7).
High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation (HFOV): Utilizes rapid oscillations at small tidal volumes, thereby maintaining lung recruitment while minimizing barotrauma. Newer strategies now emphasize volume targeting during HFOV, leading to better control of CO₂ and improved outcomes (7, 8).
Lung-Protective Strategies
Modern neonatal ventilation prioritizes lung protection by minimizing injury from overdistension and repetitive collapse-reopening:
Permissive Hypercapnia: This strategy tolerates moderate hypercapnia to reduce ventilation pressures and associated lung injury.
Open Lung Strategy: This approach incorporates lung recruitment maneuvers and optimal PEEP (Positive End-Expiratory Pressure) titration to prevent atelectasis and minimize dynamic strain (9).
Volume Guarantee Modes: Integrated into many modern ventilators, these modes ensure the delivery of targeted volumes during each breath, regardless of compliance changes.
Innovations such as artificial intelligence (AI)-guided pressure titration and real-time electrical impedance tomography (EIT) are increasingly integrated to personalize lung protection strategies (2, 3).
Risks and Adverse Outcomes
Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is associated with several short- and long-term complications, including:
Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury (VILI): This encompasses barotrauma, volutrauma, atelectrauma, and biotrauma, all of which are primary contributors to bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD).
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP): A significant nosocomial infection risk that can prolong NICU stay and worsen outcomes.
Laryngeal and Airway Injury: Prolonged intubation can lead to subglottic stenosis and tracheomalacia, particularly in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants.
Chronic Lung Disease: Up to 50% of preterm infants requiring prolonged IMV develop BPD, with lasting implications for pulmonary and neurodevelopment (10).
Extubation and Weaning in Neonates
The transition from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) to spontaneous breathing is a critical juncture in neonatal respiratory care. Premature or failed extubation can lead to increased morbidity, prolonged hospital stays, and a higher risk of complications such as ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), airway trauma, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (11). Therefore, the timing and strategy for weaning and extubation must be both evidence-based and individualized.
Physiological Readiness for Extubation
Successful extubation depends on the maturity and coordination of respiratory control, adequate gas exchange, and respiratory muscle endurance. Clinicians assess multiple physiological parameters before attempting extubation, including:
Adequate Spontaneous Respiratory Drive: Demonstrated by consistent respiratory effort with an acceptable respiratory rate.
Stable Gas Exchange: Pre-extubation arterial blood gases should show a pH > 7.25, PaCO₂ < 60 mmHg (for most neonates), and SpO₂ in the target range on an FiO₂ < 0.4.
Minimal Ventilator Support: Indicated by peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) < 20 cmH₂O, PEEP ≤ 5 cmH₂O, and mean airway pressure (MAP) within safe limits.
Hemodynamic Stability: Absence of significant cardiovascular instability, apnea, or bradycardia episodes.
Premature infants are especially vulnerable to extubation failure due to underdeveloped respiratory musculature, immature central respiratory control, and a highly compliant chest wall (12).
Clinical Predictors and Tools
While there is no universally accepted extubation readiness index, several approaches have shown promise:
Spontaneous Breathing Trials (SBTs): Typically lasting 3–5 minutes, SBTs assess the neonate’s ability to breathe spontaneously with minimal pressure support. Success in SBTs correlates strongly with extubation success in older infants but has mixed predictive value in preterm infants (13).
Extubation Readiness Scores (ERS): Composite tools incorporating variables like gestational age, respiratory pattern, minute ventilation, and neurological status are under investigation to standardize assessments (3).
Diaphragmatic Ultrasound and EIT: Novel non-invasive imaging modalities such as diaphragmatic excursion measurement and electrical impedance tomography (EIT) can aid in assessing respiratory effort and lung aeration prior to extubation (2).
Weaning Strategies
Weaning protocols can be gradual or abrupt, depending on the patient’s underlying condition, lung maturity, and ventilator settings. Common strategies include:
Stepwise Reduction: This involves progressively decreasing ventilator support parameters (e.g., Peak Inspiratory Pressure [PIP], respiratory rate, FiO₂) while continuously monitoring for signs of distress or desaturation.
Mode Transitioning: This strategy involves transitioning from synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) or assist-control (A/C) to pressure support ventilation (PSV) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) before extubation.
Volume Guarantee Titration: Ensuring the delivery of a minimum tidal volume, even during low spontaneous effort, helps prevent underventilation before extubation.
Extubation Failure and Its Implications
Extubation failure—defined as the need for reintubation within 48–72 hours—occurs in up to 30–40% of extremely preterm infants. Risk factors include:
Birth weight < 1000g
Gestational age < 28 weeks
History of sepsis or intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH)
High FiO₂ (> 0.5) at the time of extubation
Poor weight gain or neuromuscular tone
The consequences of failed extubation are significant: repeated intubation increases the risk of vocal cord injury, subglottic stenosis, and worsens lung inflammation, potentially exacerbating bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (9, 11).
To mitigate this risk, post-extubation support strategies include the early use of non-invasive ventilation (e.g., nasal continuous positive airway pressure [nCPAP], bilevel positive airway pressure [BiPAP], high-flow nasal cannula [HFNC]) and pharmacologic agents like caffeine citrate, which has been shown to reduce apnea and improve extubation outcomes in preterm infants (10).
Non-Invasive Ventilation Strategies in Neonatal Respiratory
Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) plays a pivotal role in neonatal respiratory support, particularly in preterm infants, by providing respiratory assistance while avoiding the risks associated with endotracheal intubation. The primary goal of NIV is to maintain adequate gas exchange, reduce the work of breathing, and prevent lung injury associated with invasive ventilation. Over the past two decades, this field has evolved significantly, offering a range of NIV modalities with improved patient outcomes.
Modes of Non-Invasive Ventilation
Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (nCPAP) is the most widely used non-invasive technique in neonatal units. It operates by maintaining a constant distending pressure in the airways, thereby preventing alveolar collapse, improving functional residual capacity, and decreasing the work of breathing.
NCPAP is particularly effective in the early management of Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS) and has been shown to reduce the need for mechanical ventilation and the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (14).
Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV) and its variant, Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP), deliver intermittent pressure boosts over a CPAP baseline. NIPPV improves minute ventilation, augments tidal volumes, and is especially effective during weaning or post-extubation. Studies indicate that NIPPV reduces extubation failure compared to nCPAP, although its superiority in primary respiratory support is less conclusive (15, 16).
Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HHHFNC) delivers warmed, humidified air-oxygen blends at flow rates sufficient to wash out nasopharyngeal dead space and provide a low level of positive pressure. Its simplicity, comfort, and ease of use have led to its widespread adoption. However, HHHFNC may provide insufficient support in infants with moderate to severe RDS, particularly those younger than 28 weeks of gestation (17).
Non-invasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) utilizes diaphragmatic electromyographic signals to trigger ventilator assistance, offering highly synchronized support. While promising, this modality is currently limited to specialized centers and remains under evaluation in large-scale clinical trials (18).
Interfaces and Delivery Systems
The effectiveness of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is profoundly influenced by the interface used. Poorly fitted or inappropriate interfaces can lead to pressure leak, ineffective ventilation, or skin injury. A range of nasal interfaces is available, each with unique advantages and trade-offs:
Interface Type
Pressure Delivery
Comfort/Tolerability
Risk of Nasal Trauma
Leak Management
Common Use
Short Binasal Prongs (e.g., Hudson)
Reliable, low resistance
Moderate
High (esp. septal)
Good fit required
CPAP, NIPPV
Nasal Masks
Broad surface area
Moderate–High
Moderate
Lower risk of leak
CPAP, NIPPV
RAM Cannula
Variable pressures
High
Low–Moderate
Prone to leak
Low-level CPAP
Nasopharyngeal Tube
Moderate, stable
Low
High
Minimal leak
CPAP (esp. in LMICs)
There is no definitive consensus on the most effective interface; however, rotating between nasal prongs and masks is widely recommended to prevent skin breakdown (19, 20).
Failure Criteria and Escalation Indicators
Recognizing non-invasive ventilation (NIV) failure early is essential to avoid delays in mechanical ventilation, which are associated with higher morbidity. Failure criteria include:
Arterial pH < 7.25 with PaCO₂ > 65 mmHg
Sustained FiO₂ > 0.4 to maintain SpO₂ targets
Recurrent apnea (>6 episodes/hour) or severe bradycardia
Respiratory muscle fatigue and signs of distress
Hemodynamic instability
Adjuncts such as rescue surfactant therapy—administered via the INSURE (Intubation, Surfactant, Extubation) or LISA (Less Invasive Surfactant Administration) methods—can help reduce the likelihood of NIV failure and progression to mechanical ventilation (17, 21).
Clinical Outcomes and Ongoing Controversies
Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been instrumental in reducing rates of intubation, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), and ventilator-associated complications. However, several debates remain unresolved:
NIPPV vs. CPAP: While evidence supports NIPPV as superior for reducing extubation failure, its effectiveness in avoiding initial intubation is not uniformly conclusive (15).
HFNC as Primary Support: Although user-friendly and well-tolerated, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) may be suboptimal for more severe cases of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants (14, 16).
Nasal Trauma: Nasal skin breakdown remains a significant complication, particularly with prolonged nCPAP use. Preventive measures include hydrocolloid barriers, alternating interfaces, and vigilant skin checks (19).
Protocol Variability: A lack of standardized protocols for the initiation, escalation, and weaning of NIV persists across institutions, highlighting the need for consensus guidelines and further research (22).
3. Hsu, J. F., Lin, Y. C., Lin, C. Y., Chu, S. M., & Cheng, H. J. (2025). Deep learning models for early and accurate diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia in mechanically ventilated neonates. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 162, Article 107511. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482525002938
4. Chakkarapani, A. A., Adappa, R., Ali, S. K. M., & Gupta, S. (2020). Current concepts in assisted mechanical ventilation in the neonate: Part 2. International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 7(4), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpam.2020.07.006
5. Schulzke SM, Stoecklin B. Update on ventilatory management of extremely preterm infants. Pediatr Anesth. 2022;32(5):432-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.14369
6. Keszler, M. (2017). Volume-targeted ventilation: One size does not fit all. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 22(6), 369–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2017.08.002
7. Tingay, D. G., Dahm, S. I., & Sett, A. (2025). Are we ready for volume targeting during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in neonates? Pediatric Research. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-025-04015-y
10. Shi, Y., & De Luca, D. (2019). Noninvasive respiratory support strategies after extubation in preterm neonates. BMC Pediatrics, 19, Article 1625. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1625-1
11. Ozer, E. A. (2020). Lung-protective ventilation in neonatal intensive care unit. Journal of Clinical Neonatology, 9(3), 105–113. https://10.4103/jcn.JCN_96_19
12. Egbuta, C., & Easley, R. B. (2022). Update on ventilation management in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. Pediatric Anesthesia, 32(6), 698–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.14374
13. Colaizy, T. T., Elgin, T. G., Berger, J. N., & Thomas, B. A. (2022). Ventilator management in extremely preterm infants. NeoReviews, 23(10), e661–e671. https://doi.org/10.1542/neo.23-10-e661
14. Shi, Y., Muniraman, H., & Biniwale, M. (2020). A review on non-invasive respiratory support for management of respiratory distress in extremely preterm infants. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 8, Article 270. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00270
15. Yuan, G., Liu, H., Wu, Z., & Chen, X. (2021). Comparison of the efficacy and safety of three non-invasive ventilation methods in the initial treatment of premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14(2), 375–383. https://e-century.us/files/ijcem/14/2/ijcem0116814.pdf
16. More, K., Ramaswamy, V. V., & Roehr, C. C. (2020). Efficacy of noninvasive respiratory support modes for primary respiratory support in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatric Pulmonology, 55(6), 1325–1335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.25011
17. Dassios, T., Kaltsogianni, O., & Greenough, A. (2023). Neonatal respiratory support strategies—short and long-term respiratory outcomes. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 11, Article 1212074. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2023.1212074
18. Karnati, S., & Sammour, I. (2020). Non-invasive respiratory support of the premature neonate: from physics to bench to practice. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 8, Article 214. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00214
19. Boel, L., Hixson, T., Brown, L., Sage, J., & Kotecha, S. (2022). Non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants. Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, 44, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prrv.2022.01.004
20. Ramaswamy, V. V., Devi, R., & Kumar, G. (2023). Non-invasive ventilation in neonates: a review of current literature. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 11, Article 1248836. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2023.1248836
21. Permall, D. L., Pasha, A. B., & Chen, X. (2019). Current insights in non-invasive ventilation for the treatment of neonatal respiratory disease. Italian Journal of Pediatrics, 45, 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-019-0707-x
22. Hussain, W. A., & Marks, J. D. (2019). Approaches to noninvasive respiratory support in preterm infants: from CPAP to NAVA. NeoReviews, 20(4), e213–e225.
Home mechanical ventilation refers to the support or complete replacement of spontaneous breathing using mechanical ventilator devices in patients with respiratory failure, provided within a home setting. These systems are typically initiated in a hospital environment and transferred to the home once the patient has achieved a stable condition.
Protection against power outages: Generator or uninterruptible power supply (UPS)
Trained caregiver: A family member or professional nurse with appropriate training
Medical follow-up: Regular monitoring by a pulmonologist, respiratory therapist, and a home healthcare team
Hygiene: Particularly important for patients with tracheostomies, due to the high risk of infection
Family and Patient Education for HMV
Relatives of patients receiving home mechanical ventilation must be educated on:
Proper use of the ventilator and related equipment
Emergency response procedures
Cleaning and maintenance of the devices
Breathing exercises and airway clearance techniques
Risks and Considerations
Risk of infection, especially in tracheostomized patients
Device malfunction or failure
Airway obstruction due to secretions or improper positioning
Ventilator inoperability during power outages, if no backup system is available
Advantages of Home Mechanical Ventilation
Reduced length of hospital stay
A more comfortable and familiar living environment
Positive impact on the patient’s psychological well-being
Emotional support from being close to family members
Benefits for Patients and Caregivers
There are several essential considerations for patients receiving home mechanical ventilation and the individuals who care for them. The primary goals are to ensure the patient’s safety and to facilitate the caregiver’s responsibilities.
Proper use of respiratory devices is critical for patients to maintain a safe and comfortable life at home. Both the patient and caregiver must receive training on how the ventilator functions, the meanings of alarm signals, and when to seek medical assistance. In addition, spare parts, batteries, and cleaning supplies for the equipment should always be readily available.
Maintaining the patient’s emotional well-being is equally as important as providing physical care. Establishing a consistent daily routine, promoting social interaction, and avoiding prolonged periods in the same position help support both psychological and physical health. Skin care and oral hygiene must not be neglected, especially since infection risk is significantly higher in these patients.
Caregivers must adhere strictly to hygiene protocols, wash their hands frequently, and apply sterile techniques—especially when caring for patients with tracheostomies. Regular cleaning of the equipment, correct usage, and consistent monitoring are essential. At least one person in the household should be trained in basic first aid to respond to emergencies, and precautions must be taken to address potential power outages.
Importantly, the emotional dimension of this process should not be overlooked. Long-term caregivers are at risk of burnout and should seek support and allow time for rest. Regular medical check-ups and professional home care support are vital to maintaining the long-term sustainability of home mechanical ventilation.
FAQs
1. Is home mechanical ventilation safe? Yes, it is generally safe when proper equipment is used, caregivers are trained, and there is regular medical supervision.
2. What happens in the event of a power outage? If the ventilator has a battery, it will continue to operate for a limited time. However, a generator or uninterruptible power supply (UPS) should always be available as a backup.
3. Can a patient on mechanical ventilation be fed? Yes. Depending on the clinical situation, feeding can be done orally or via a feeding tube, under the guidance of a physician or dietitian.
Neuromonitoring is a vital medical technology that provides real-time assessments of the nervous system’s functional integrity during surgeries and critical care situations. It plays a crucial role in preventing neurological damage, particularly in neurosurgery, spinal surgery, ENT procedures, and intensive care units (ICUs).
This technology, which includes techniques such as electroencephalography (EEG), electromyography (EMG), and evoked potentials, has evolved significantly since its inception in the early 20th century. The integration of these systems into clinical practice began gaining momentum in the 1970s and 1980s, improving surgical outcomes by enabling early detection of potential neural compromise.
The significance of neuromonitoring lies in its ability to enhance patient safety, reduce surgical risks, and optimize clinical decision-making by offering real-time neurophysiological feedback.
Furthermore, with advances in artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, and miniaturization, the future of neuromonitoring promises to enhance its precision, accessibility, and adaptability, further transforming its role in patient care.
This review explores the historical development, clinical applications, and future directions of neuromonitoring, highlighting its growing importance in modern medicine.
Introduction to Neuromonitoring
The origins of neuromonitoring date back to the early 20th century, with the invention of:
Electroencephalography (EEG) in the 1920s by Hans Berger, which provided a method to monitor electrical activity in the brain (1).
Electromyography (EMG) in the 1940s, allowing for the recording of muscle responses triggered by nerve stimulation (2).
However, intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) gained widespread adoption in the 1970s and 1980s, following advancements in signal processing, neurophysiology, and instrumentation that made real-time monitoring feasible during complex surgeries (3).
Neuromonitoring is fundamentally rooted in the principles of neurophysiology, the branch of physiology that explores the functional properties of the nervous system at cellular, molecular, and systemic levels (4).
The nervous system operates through the generation and propagation of electrical impulses known as action potentials, which are initiated by ion exchange across neuronal membranes (4). These action potentials are essential for transmitting information between neurons and from neurons to muscles or sensory receptors via synaptic transmission (4).
In clinical neuromonitoring, these electrical signals are captured and interpreted using a range of techniques that exploit the bioelectrical nature of the nervous system.
Electroencephalography (EEG) records spontaneous electrical activity of the cerebral cortex and is especially valuable in detecting cortical dysfunction or seizure activity (5).
Electromyography (EMG) measures the electrical activity produced by skeletal muscles and is widely used to assess peripheral nerve integrity, particularly during spinal and cranial surgeries (6).
Evoked potentials (EPs), such as Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SSEPs) and Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs), are used to monitor the functional pathways of the central nervous system by applying a stimulus and recording the response (7).
SSEPs test the integrity of ascending sensory pathways, while MEPs evaluate descending motor pathways, especially useful in spinal and neurosurgical procedures (7).
Advanced neuromonitoring often integrates multimodal approaches, combining several neurophysiological techniques simultaneously to provide comprehensive feedback on the functional status of different components of the nervous system (8).
These techniques rely on both surface electrodes (placed on the scalp or skin) and needle electrodes (inserted intramuscularly or subdermally) for precise localization and quantification of neural activity.
Clinically, these signals serve as real-time indicators of neural integrity. A sudden loss or attenuation of an evoked potential, for example, may indicate ischemia, mechanical compression, or direct trauma to a neural structure (9).
This real-time feedback allows surgeons and anesthesiologists to adjust surgical technique, reposition instruments, or modify anesthesia protocols to mitigate the risk of permanent neurological injury (9). The integration of neurophysiological principles into intraoperative and critical care monitoring has therefore become essential for enhancing surgical safety, improving neurological outcomes, and reducing medico-legal risks (9).
Neuromonitoring is a medical technology designed to assess and monitor the functional integrity of the nervous system in real-time during surgeries and critical care situations. It plays a vital role in neurosurgery, spinal surgery, ENT procedures, and critical care, enabling healthcare professionals to detect and prevent neurological damage before it becomes irreversible (9).
By continuously measuring electrical activity in the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves, neuromonitoring enhances patient safety, surgical precision, and overall outcomes.
Definition of Neuromonitor
A neuromonitor, short for neurological monitor or neuromonitoring device, is a medical diagnostic tool designed to continuously assess and record electrical activity within the nervous system (10). It plays a critical role in detecting early signs of neurological impairment, especially during high-risk surgeries or in intensive care settings (11).
These devices are vital in ensuring the functional integrity of neural structures—such as the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves—remains intact during procedures where these structures are vulnerable to injury (12).
Applications of Neuromonitors in Medicine
Neuromonitoring is utilized across a wide spectrum of clinical settings where real-time assessment of nervous system function is critical for patient safety. Its primary application is in the intraoperative environment, where it serves as a safeguard during surgeries that pose a risk to neural structures such as the brain, spinal cord, or peripheral nerves (2,8).
By continuously tracking neural signals, neuromonitoring helps surgeons detect early signs of nerve irritation or injury, enabling immediate corrective measures to prevent long-term deficits (3,8). Beyond the operating room, neuromonitoring is also employed in intensive care units (ICUs) to evaluate brain activity in patients with traumatic brain injury, stroke, or coma (11,13).
Additionally, it plays a key role in neurological diagnostics, such as epilepsy monitoring and assessing neuromuscular disorders (5,7). As such, neuromonitoring has become a cornerstone of modern neuroprotective strategies across various disciplines of medicine (9).
1. Intraoperative Neuromonitoring (IONM) in Surgery
Neuromonitors are extensively used during surgeries to monitor neural pathways and prevent neurological injuries. Their primary applications include:
Neurosurgery: Used for procedures such as brain tumor removal, epilepsy surgery, and aneurysm clipping, where preserving functional brain areas is essential (5,8).
Spinal Surgery: Ensures spinal cord integrity during procedures like scoliosis correction, spinal decompression, and spinal fusion surgeries using Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SSEPs) and Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs) (3,7,8).
Peripheral Nerve Surgery: Protects motor and sensory nerves during surgeries involving limbs or facial nerve reconstruction (8).
Vascular Surgery: Reduces the risk of stroke by monitoring brain activity and blood flow during carotid endarterectomy and aortic aneurysm repair (8).
Example: During spinal fusion surgery, SSEPs and MEPs are employed to continuously monitor the spinal cord’s functional integrity, minimizing the risk of postoperative neurological deficits (3,7).
2. Intensive Care Unit (ICU) & Neurocritical Monitoring
Neuromonitors are critical in the ICU for continuous assessment of brain function, particularly for patients with severe neurological conditions.
Coma & Brain Death Assessment: Using Continuous EEG (cEEG) to detect non-convulsive seizures or assess brain activity in unresponsive patients (11,13).
Video-EEG Monitoring: Simultaneously records physical symptoms and electrical activity during seizures (14).
Intracranial Depth Electrodes: Used for mapping seizure-prone areas in surgical candidates (14).
Example: Neuromonitoring helps identify the precise brain region responsible for seizure activity, guiding surgical removal of the affected area when medication is ineffective (14).
4. Anesthesia & Sedation Monitoring
Neuromonitoring is increasingly used to optimize anesthesia and sedation levels during surgery.
Bispectral Index (BIS) Monitoring: Measures depth of anesthesia to prevent under- or over-sedation (15).
Processed EEG (pEEG): Adjusts anesthesia dosage based on real-time brain activity (15).
Example: BIS monitoring ensures patients receive the appropriate level of anesthesia during high-risk neurosurgical procedures, enhancing recovery and minimizing side effects (15).
5. Neurological Research & Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI)
Neuromonitors are essential for developing brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) and enhancing neuroprosthetic technologies.
Neuroprosthetics & Robotics: Allow paralyzed individuals to control external devices using brain signals (16).
AI-Driven Cognitive Monitoring: Facilitates early detection of dementia and other neurodegenerative conditions (16).
Neurofeedback therapy: Used in treating Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and cognitive rehabilitation (16). Example: EEG-based BCIs allow individuals with severe disabilities to communicate and control assistive devices using brain signals alone (16).
Technical Aspects of Neuromonitors
Neuromonitoring systems rely on a combination of sophisticated hardware and intelligent software to deliver real-time insights into neural function. From core sensors and signal processing techniques to intuitive interfaces and portable designs, each component plays a vital role in ensuring accurate, reliable, and clinically meaningful monitoring.
1. Core Sensors & Electrodes Used in Neuromonitoring
Neuromonitors employ various sensors to capture neural activity:
EEG Electrodes (Scalp & Depth Electrodes): Record brain electrical activity.
EMG Electrodes: Measure muscle activity to evaluate nerve integrity.
SSEP & MEP Electrodes: Stimulate and monitor sensory and motor pathways.
Intracranial Pressure (ICP) Sensors: Monitor brain swelling in TBI patients.
2. Signal Processing & Interpretation
Amplification: Enhances weak neural signals for accurate interpretation.
Filtering: Removes artifacts caused by muscle movement, eye blinks, and external noise.
Machine Learning Algorithms: AI-based software identifies early-stage seizures, cerebral ischemia, and other anomalies.
Example: AI-enhanced EEG systems can predict seizures several hours before clinical symptoms appear, allowing for early interventions.
3. User Interface & Data Visualization
Modern neuromonitors offer intuitive interfaces that provide:
Real-time multi-channel waveforms.
Automated alerts for abnormal neural activity.
3D Brain Mapping for surgical guidance.
Remote Monitoring via cloud-based AI.
Example: Portable neuromonitors like the Natus Brain Monitor provide continuous EEG tracking in ICUs, with instant alerts sent to clinicians’ mobile devices.
4. Wireless & Portable Neuromonitoring Devices
Technological advancements have led to portable and wireless systems that enhance patient accessibility:
Wearable EEG Headsets: Used for epilepsy monitoring and sleep disorder diagnosis.
Telemedicine-Enabled Diagnostics: Allows remote monitoring and care.
Wireless Neurostimulators: Assist patients with Parkinson’s disease and chronic pain.
Example: Bioscope by Biosys, initially a dual-channel neuromonitoring system for ENT, hand, and facial surgeries, is currently advancing to a 16-channel platform to expand its capabilities in both traditional and remote surgical environments.
Significance of Neuromonitoring
The nervous system, comprising the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves, is highly vulnerable to injury during surgical interventions, trauma, or critical illness (4).
Even minimal damage to these structures can lead to devastating and often irreversible consequences such as motor deficits, sensory loss, chronic pain, paralysis, or cognitive dysfunction (4,9). This is particularly true during procedures involving delicate anatomical regions such as the spine, brainstem, cranial nerves, or peripheral nerve plexuses (8).
Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) serves as a real-time surveillance system, enabling surgeons and anesthesiologists to continuously evaluate the functional integrity of neural pathways during surgical procedures (3,8).
By detecting subtle changes in neural activity, IONM provides early warning signs of potential nerve compromise before structural damage becomes permanent (8). This allows the surgical team to immediately adjust their technique—such as repositioning surgical tools, reducing traction, or altering the depth of anesthesia—to prevent injury (3,8).
Furthermore, neuromonitoring contributes to improved functional and neurological outcomes. Numerous clinical studies have shown that the use of IONM in spine and brain surgeries significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative neurological deficits (9,17).
For instance, in scoliosis correction or tumor resection surgeries, monitoring somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) helps ensure spinal cord integrity throughout the operation (7,9,17).
In critical care settings, such as the intensive care unit (ICU), neuromonitoring technologies like EEG and bispectral index (BIS) allow clinicians to assess brain function in patients with coma, traumatic brain injury, or under sedation (11,13,15).
This enables timely interventions that may mitigate secondary brain injury, optimize ventilator management, or evaluate seizure activity (11,13,15).
In summary, the importance of neuromonitoring lies in its ability to:
Enhance surgical safety by reducing the risk of intraoperative nerve damage (8,9).
Support clinical decision-making with real-time neurophysiological feedback (8,9).
Improve prognosis and long-term outcomes by preserving neurological function (9,17).
Reduce healthcare burden by preventing complications that may lead to prolonged hospitalization, rehabilitation, or lifelong disability (17).
As surgical procedures become more complex and patient populations more vulnerable, the role of neuromonitoring becomes increasingly essential in delivering high-quality, patient-centered care (9,17).
Future of Neuromonitoring
Neuromonitoring is undergoing a transformative evolution driven by technological advancements, with the future promising smarter, more adaptive, and more accessible monitoring solutions (16,18). As surgical procedures grow increasingly complex and precision becomes paramount, the demand for advanced neuromonitoring capabilities has never been greater (9,18).
Future directions in this field are largely shaped by the integration of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, cloud-based platforms, and real-time remote monitoring, all of which aim to enhance safety, efficiency, and patient outcomes (16,18,19).
1. Artificial Intelligence and Predictive Analytics
AI is beginning to revolutionize how neuromonitoring data is interpreted. By applying machine learning algorithms to large datasets of neurophysiological signals, systems can identify subtle patterns and deviations that may precede neurological injury (16,18). This allows for predictive diagnostics, enabling clinicians to act before critical thresholds are crossed. For example, AI-enhanced systems can detect early signs of ischemia or nerve traction injuries based on changes in signal amplitude or latency long before these would be apparent to the human eye (16,18,19).
2. Cloud-Based Data Storage and Analysis
The integration of cloud computing facilitates secure, centralized storage and analysis of neuromonitoring data (20). This approach offers several benefits, including:
Long-term tracking of patient neurological trends (20).
Facilitating multi-center collaborations and comparative studies (20).
Providing remote access to data for expert consultations, even during surgery (20).
Enabling real-time audits and quality assurance for improved accountability and outcomes (20).
3. Remote and Telemonitoring Capabilities
With the rise of telemedicine, neuromonitoring systems are beginning to support remote supervision (21). This allows expert neurophysiologists to oversee and interpret intraoperative neuromonitoring from different locations, enhancing the availability of specialized care in rural or underserved hospitals (21). This development also supports the scalability of neuromonitoring services, ensuring that high-risk procedures can be safely conducted even in lower-resourced settings (21).
4. Miniaturization and Wearable Neuromonitors
The development of portable and wearable neuromonitoring devices is another key innovation on the horizon (22). These compact systems can continuously monitor neural activity outside the operating room — such as in ICU patients, during sleep studies, or in home rehabilitation settings — offering clinicians new ways to manage and follow neurological function over time (22).
5. Enhanced User Interfaces and Automation
Modern neuromonitoring systems are being designed with more intuitive user interfaces, automatic signal calibration, and smart artifact reduction features (19,22). These improvements reduce the cognitive and technical load on operating room staff and improve the accuracy and reliability of the recorded data (19,22).
6. Integration with Surgical Robotics and Navigation
As robot-assisted surgeries become more common, future neuromonitoring systems are being designed to integrate seamlessly with robotic platforms and navigation systems (23). This allows real-time neurophysiological feedback to directly guide robotic movement, reducing human error and increasing surgical precision (23).
The future of neuromonitoring is geared toward making surgeries safer, more efficient, and more patient-specific (18,19). With ongoing advances in AI, connectivity, hardware, and interface design, neuromonitoring is poised to become an even more integral part of precision medicine and surgical care (16,18,19).
These innovations will not only enhance intraoperative decision-making but also expand the reach of neuromonitoring into diagnostics, rehabilitation, and long-term neurological care (16,19,22).
References
Berger, H. (1929). Über das Elektrenkephalogramm des Menschen. Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 87(1), 527–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01797193
Preston, D. C., & Shapiro, B. E. (2013). Electromyography and neuromuscular disorders: Clinical-electrophysiologic correlations (3rd ed.). Elsevier.
MacDonald, D. B. (2006). Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring: Overview and update. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, 20(5), 347–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-006-9040-6
Purves, D., Augustine, G. J., & Fitzpatrick, D. (2018). Neuroscience (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Niedermeyer, E., & da Silva, F. L. (2004). Electroencephalography: Basic principles, clinical applications, and related fields (5th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Dumitru, D., Amato, A. A., & Zwarts, M. J. (2002). Electrodiagnostic medicine (2nd ed.). Hanley & Belfus.
Nuwer, M. R. (1998). Intraoperative monitoring of neural function. In Handbook of Clinical Neurophysiology (Vol. 3, pp. 841–871). Elsevier.
Sala, F., & Deletis, V. (2007). Intraoperative neurophysiology in neurosurgery: A short overview. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(3), 525–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2006.10.021
Skinner, S. A., Transfeldt, E. E., & Grafton, S. T. (2008). Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring: A review of techniques used to monitor the nervous system during spine surgery. Neurosurgical Focus, 25(3), E6. https://doi.org/10.3171/FOC/2008/25/9/E6
MacDonald, D. B., Skinner, S., Shils, J., & Yingling, C. (2013). Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring – A position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Clinical Neurophysiology, 124(12), 2291–2316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2013.07.025
Oddo, M., Bösel, J., Helbok, R., et al. (2018). Monitoring the injured brain: ICP and advanced neuromonitoring. Intensive Care Medicine, 44(12), 1888–1890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5448-2
Nuwer, M. R., Dawson, E. G., Carlson, L. G., & Kanim, L. E. (1995). Somatosensory evoked potential spinal cord monitoring reduces neurologic deficits after scoliosis surgery: Results of a large multicenter survey. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 96(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(95)00035-6
Smith, S. J. M. (2005). EEG in the diagnosis, classification, and management of patients with epilepsy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 76(suppl 2), ii2–ii7. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2005.069245
Rampil, I. J. (1998). A primer for EEG signal processing in anesthesia. Anesthesiology, 89(4), 980–1002. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199810000-00023
Lebedev, M. A., & Nicolelis, M. A. L. (2006). Brain–machine interfaces: past, present and future. Trends in Neurosciences, 29(9), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2006.07.004
Chuang, C. F., Chen, Y. J., Chang, Y. J., et al. (2021). Artificial intelligence applications in intraoperative neuromonitoring: A review. Frontiers in Medicine, 8, 655105. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.655105
Fehlings, M. G., Brodke, D. S., Norvell, D. C., & Dettori, J. R. (2010). The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: Does it make a difference? Spine, 35(9 Suppl), S37–S46. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d82c74
Varatharajan, R., & Navaneethakrishnan, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence based neural monitoring and robotics in surgery. Surgical Innovation, 27(6), 663–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350620943535
El-Osta, A., Elghazaly, A., & Said, M. (2022). Cloud computing in healthcare: Review and research challenges. Healthcare Technology Letters, 9(2), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1049/htl2.12016
Garcia, R. M., & Sherman, E. M. (2020). Tele-neuromonitoring: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring from a distance. Clinical Neurophysiology, 131(1), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2019.10.022
Khan, M. J., Hong, M. J., & Hong, K. S. (2018). Decoding of four movement directions using hybrid NIRS-EEG brain-computer interface. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 244. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00244
Baek, H., Chung, J., Kim, Y. J., & Park, Y. S. (2021). Real-time neurophysiological monitoring during robot-assisted neurosurgery. Frontiers in Surgery, 8, 658776. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.658776
Intraoperative nerve monitoring is a neurophysiological technique that enables real-time monitoring of nerve function during surgical procedures. This method is employed to preserve the anatomical and functional integrity of nerves. IONM serves as a critical tool, particularly in surgeries where there is a risk of nerve injury, by helping to localize nerves and prevent potential damage.
How Is It Used?
IONM is implemented through the use of devices and electrodes that monitor the electrical activity of nerves. The basic steps are as follows:
Surface or needle electrodes are placed either directly on the target nerve or on muscles innervated by that nerve. The muscular responses to stimulation are then recorded.
Low-voltage electrical stimuli are delivered to areas near the nerve within the surgical field.
The signals generated by these stimuli are continuously monitored on the device screen in real time. Any indication of nerve injury or functional impairment is immediately communicated to the surgeon.
Applications of IONM
IONM is utilized across various surgical fields to enhance patient safety. Its primary applications include:
Brain and Spinal Surgery: Used in procedures involving areas close to the spinal cord, brainstem, and cranial nerves.
Head and Neck Surgery: Particularly important in thyroid and parathyroid surgeries for the preservation of the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
Cardiac and Thoracic Surgery: Crucial for protecting nerve structures surrounding major blood vessels.
Orthopedic Surgery: Employed in scoliosis and spinal correction surgeries to prevent spinal cord injury.
Peripheral Nerve Surgery: Essential for preserving nerve function during procedures such as tumor removal or nerve grafting.
Advantages of IONM
Prevents nerve injury.
Enhances surgical safety.
May reduce the duration of postoperative rehabilitation.
Provides real-time feedback to assist and guide the surgeon during the procedure.
Recent Advances in Intraoperative Nerve Monitoring
In recent years, one of the most notable developments in the field of IONM has been the integration of artificial intelligence-based analysis systems. These systems are capable of interpreting signal changes in real time and can alert surgeons in advance of a potential risk of nerve injury. Monitoring systems integrated with robotic surgery platforms allow surgeons to perform complex procedures with increased precision and safety. Additionally, telemonitoring technologies enable experts to provide remote support to surgical teams, making the use of IONM feasible even in centers with limited access to advanced technology. These advancements not only enhance patient safety but also contribute positively to surgical outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
1) Is the use of neuromonitoring mandatory in all surgeries? No, the use of neuromonitoring is not required for every surgical procedure. However, in operations where there is a risk of nerve injury nerve preservation is of critical importance. In such cases, neuromonitoring facilitates safer surgical intervention by helping the surgeon avoid nerve damage.
2) Is a neuromonitor available in every hospital? No, not all hospitals are equipped with neuromonitoring systems. University hospitals, training and research hospitals, and some private medical centers—especially those performing advanced surgical procedures—are more likely to have access to this technology.
3) Are neuromonitors operated by doctors? Neuromonitoring is typically conducted by a neurophysiology technician, clinical neurophysiologist, anesthesiologist, or a healthcare professional trained in this field.
References
Chansakul C, Nair DR: Evoked potential monitoring. In:Farag E (ed), Anestesia for Spine Surgery. Cambridge, 2012:89-105
James ML: Anesthetic consideratşons. In: Husain AM, (ed), A Practical Approach to Neurophysiological Intraoperative Monitoring. Demos Medical Publishing, 2008:55-56
Kothbauer KF, Novak K: Intraoperative monitoring for tethered cord surgery: An update. Neurosurg Focus 16: E8, 2004
The Bioscope by Biosys system requires various consumables to function effectively during ENT, hand, and facial surgeries. Here’s how to properly use, maintain, and replace these consumables, followed by a comparison with brand A and brand B.
How to Properly Use, Maintain, and Replace Bioscope Consumables
1. Needle Electrodes (EMG Monitoring)
Use:
Insert needle electrodes into the target muscle or nerve area to record EMG signals.
Ensure proper placement to avoid inaccurate readings or tissue damage.
Maintenance:
None; these are single-use only.
Replacement:
Discard after each surgery following biohazard disposal protocols.
Apply a thin layer of conductive gel or paste to improve signal conductivity.
Place electrodes over the skin where nerve signals are to be detected (e.g., vocal cords or facial nerves).
Secure electrodes properly to prevent shifting during surgery.
Maintenance:
None; single-use only.
Replacement:
Discard after each surgery.
Cost per set: $10 – $50.
3. Electrode Pads (Scalp or Skin Contact)
Use:
Attach to the skin using adhesive backing.
Ensure proper placement to minimize signal loss.
Maintenance:
None; disposable and single-use.
Replacement:
Replace after each use.
Cost per set: $10 – $30.
4. Conductive Gel and Paste
Use:
Apply directly to the skin before attaching electrodes.
Spread evenly to ensure good electrical conductivity.
Maintenance:
Store in a cool, dry place with the cap tightly sealed.
Replacement:
Replace after each patient use.
Cost per tube: $5 – $15.
5. Disposable Stimulation Probes (If Used)
Use:
Apply sterile stimulation probes to nerve locations during stimulation tests.
Ensure precise placement for effective nerve response monitoring.
Maintenance:
None; single-use only.
Replacement:
Discard after each procedure.
Cost per probe: $50 – $200.
6. Connecting Cables (Limited-Use)
Use:
Connect electrodes to the amplifier and processing unit.
Ensure proper connection points to prevent signal disruption.
Maintenance:
Clean cables with alcohol wipes after each use.
Inspect for wear, fraying, or loss of insulation.
Replacement:
Replace when damaged or signal integrity is compromised.
Cost per cable: $20 – $100.
7. Sterile Drapes & Covers (Protective Use)
Use:
Cover non-sterile components to maintain a sterile field.
Protect electrodes and cables from contamination.
Maintenance:
None; single-use only.
Replacement:
Discard after each procedure.
Cost per drape or cover: $5 – $15.
Comparison with Brand A & Brand B IONM Systems
Aspect
Bioscope by Biosys
Brand A
Brand B
Needle Electrodes
Single-use, disposable.
Single-use, disposable.
Single-use, disposable.
Adhesive Electrodes
Single-use, disposable.
Single-use, disposable.
Single-use, disposable.
Electrode Pads
Single-use, disposable.
Reusable types available for EEG.
Reusable and single-use options.
Conductive Gel/Paste
Single-use per patient.
Single-use per patient.
Single-use per patient.
Stimulation Probes
Single-use, limited-use.
Reusable with sterilization.
Reusable and disposable options.
Connecting Cables
Reusable, limited lifespan.
Reusable, more durable.
Reusable, high-quality shielding.
Sterile Drapes & Covers
Single-use.
Single-use.
Single-use.
Cost Range (Per Use)
$100 – $300 per surgery.
$200 – $500 per surgery.
$250 – $600 per surgery.
Sterilization Needs
Limited to connecting cables and stimulation probes.
Extensive for probes and cables.
Extensive for probes, cables, and electrodes.
Maintenance Frequency
Low to moderate.
High (more parts requiring sterilization).
High (multi-modality systems).
System Focus
ENT & Peripheral Nerve Monitoring.
Cranial, Spinal, and ENT Monitoring.
Comprehensive, Multi-Modality Monitoring.
The Bioscope by Biosys, designed for simplicity and cost-effectiveness, is ideal for ENT, hand, and facial surgeries due to its low maintenance and minimal consumable requirements. It provides essential monitoring, especially for laryngeal nerve function, making it a valuable tool in delicate nerve surgeries. Its ease of use and affordability make it a go-to option for institutions with limited resources.
Brand A offers multi-modality support, including EEG, EMG, MEP, and SSEP monitoring capabilities, making it versatile in a wide range of surgical procedures, from cranial to spinal surgeries. While it uses similar consumables to other systems, its complex nature demands more thorough sterilization and frequent maintenance. The system’s multi-modality capabilities make it invaluable in high-risk surgeries but also require more careful handling to ensure reliability and patient safety.
Brand B, a comprehensive and high-precision system, is the most resource-intensive of the three. It supports a wide variety of surgeries, including spinal and brain procedures, and requires frequent replacement of high-quality electrodes and probes. Its advanced features make it suitable for complex surgeries, but the broad application scope comes with the tradeoff of higher operational costs and greater maintenance needs.
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Using, Maintaining, and Replacing Consumables in the Bioscope System
This SOP will help you ensure effective use, maintenance, and replacement of consumables for the Bioscope by Biosys neuromonitoring system. It also includes cost optimization strategies and efficiency improvements.
Section 1: Preparation & Setup
1.1 Preparation Before Surgery
Check Inventory:
Ensure sufficient supply of all required consumables:
Needle Electrodes (EMG)
Adhesive Surface Electrodes (EMG, SSEP)
Electrode Pads
Conductive Gel / Paste
Disposable Stimulation Probes (if used)
Connecting Cables (reusable)
Sterile Drapes & Covers
Visual Inspection:
Examine reusable components (cables, stimulation probes) for signs of damage, fraying, or corrosion.
Replace damaged items immediately.
Sterility Check:
Confirm that all disposable items are sealed and sterile before use.
Equipment Calibration:
Test and calibrate the signal amplifier and data acquisition unit.
Ensure all connections are secure and functional.
Section 2: Intraoperative Use
2.1 Setting Up Consumables
Needle Electrodes (EMG):
Insert into the muscle groups associated with the nerves being monitored.
Secure using adhesive pads or clips as needed.
Adhesive Surface Electrodes (EMG, SSEP):
Apply a thin layer of conductive gel or paste to the skin before placement.
Attach electrodes firmly and ensure proper contact.
Electrode Pads:
Apply directly to the skin where signal acquisition is needed (e.g., scalp or limbs).
Stimulation Probes (If Used):
Attach to the nerve sites for direct stimulation.
Monitor response via the Bioscope interface for real-time feedback.
Section 3: Post-Surgery Cleanup & Maintenance
3.1 Consumable Replacement
Single-Use Components:
Discard all used needle electrodes, adhesive electrodes, electrode pads, stimulation probes, and drapes/covers in appropriate biohazard disposal containers.
Limited-Use Components (Connecting Cables):
Clean cables with alcohol wipes or disinfectant solutions.
Inspect cables for physical damage before next use.
3.2 Sterilization of Reusable Components
Connecting Cables & Stimulation Probes:
Clean with 70% isopropyl alcohol wipes or appropriate disinfectants.
For stimulation probes:
If reusable, sterilize using an autoclave (if heat-tolerant) or chemical disinfectants (e.g., glutaraldehyde).
Dry thoroughly before storing.
3.3 Data Backup & Software Maintenance
Save patient data to secure storage systems as per medical standards.
Check for software updates to maintain optimal performance.
Run diagnostic tests to ensure proper calibration and system integrity.
Purchase needle electrodes, adhesive electrodes, and electrode pads in bulk to reduce per-unit costs.
Using Reusable Components Where Safe:
Invest in high-quality, reusable connecting cables and stimulation probes.
Follow strict sterilization protocols to maximize lifespan.
Maintenance Schedule:
Implement a scheduled maintenance plan for reusable components to ensure reliability and reduce replacement frequency.
Regular Supplier Evaluation:
Compare suppliers for competitive pricing and quality.
Negotiate contracts with manufacturers for long-term supply at reduced rates.
Staff Training:
Provide training on proper handling, cleaning, and disposal procedures to prevent damage and contamination.
Section 5: Comparison with Other Systems
Aspect
Bioscope by Biosys
Brand A
Brand B
Single-Use Parts Cost
Lower (Approx. $100 – $300 per surgery)
Moderate (Approx. $200 – $500 per surgery)
High (Approx. $250 – $600 per surgery)
Sterilization Needs
Limited to cables and stimulation probes
Extensive; requires frequent sterilization of probes and cables.
Frequent sterilization needed for all components.
Reusable Components
Cables, Stimulation Probes (if used)
Cables, Probes, Certain Electrodes
Cables, Electrodes, Stimulation Devices
Maintenance Frequency
Moderate (Few components to sterilize)
High (Multiple components)
High (Multi-modality systems)
Cost Optimization Methods
Bulk purchasing and reusing cables where possible.
Long-term contracts with suppliers.
Careful maintenance and cleaning of reusable parts.
Component Lifespan
Moderate to High (Reusable components last longer with proper care).
Moderate (High maintenance cost).
High (Excellent durability but complex handling).
Use of Neuromonitoring in ENT (Ear, Nose, Throat) Operations
Neuromonitoring is increasingly used in ENT surgeries to preserve nerve integrity and prevent nerve damage, especially when critical nerves are at risk of injury. Its use in ENT procedures is particularly important because even minor damage to nerves can cause significant functional impairments, such as voice loss, swallowing difficulties, or facial paralysis.
Common ENT Surgeries Where Neuromonitoring Is Used
1. Thyroid and Parathyroid Surgery (Most Common Use)
Nerve at Risk: Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (RLN) and Superior Laryngeal Nerve (SLN).
Why Neuromonitoring is Important:
The RLN controls the muscles of the vocal cords; injury can cause hoarseness, loss of voice, or breathing difficulties.
The SLN affects voice pitch; injury can result in difficulty modulating voice.
How Neuromonitoring is Used:
Electrodes are placed on the vocal cord muscles (via endotracheal tube electrodes) or on the skin near the laryngeal muscles.
Electrical stimulation is applied, and the EMG response is monitored in real-time.
Visual and audio alerts indicate proximity to or damage of the nerve.
2. Parotid Gland Surgery (Facial Nerve Monitoring)
Nerve at Risk: Facial Nerve (CN VII).
Why Neuromonitoring is Important:
The Facial Nerve controls muscle movements of the face.
Injury can cause partial or complete facial paralysis.
How Neuromonitoring is Used:
Surface or needle electrodes are placed in facial muscles innervated by the facial nerve.
Continuous EMG monitoring detects nerve activity during surgery.
Alerts warn the surgeon when nerve manipulation is detected.
The nerves involved are essential for swallowing, speech, facial movements, and other critical functions.
Damage can cause permanent deficits if not detected early.
How Neuromonitoring is Used:
Electrode placement around nerves at risk.
Monitoring of muscle activity during surgical manipulation.
Audio-visual feedback provided in real-time.
4. Cochlear Implant Surgery
Nerve at Risk: Facial Nerve (CN VII).
Why Neuromonitoring is Important:
The facial nerve is very close to the surgical area when inserting cochlear implants.
Prevents accidental damage during electrode array insertion.
How Neuromonitoring is Used:
Continuous monitoring of facial muscle activity to avoid nerve damage.
EMG electrodes are placed over relevant muscles.
5. Ear Surgeries (e.g., Mastoidectomy)
Nerve at Risk: Facial Nerve (CN VII).
Why Neuromonitoring is Important:
Injury to the facial nerve can result in facial droop or paralysis.
Necessary during procedures involving the mastoid bone or middle ear.
How Neuromonitoring is Used:
Real-time monitoring of nerve function using EMG electrodes.
Electrical stimulation can be applied to detect nerve presence.
How Neuromonitoring Works in ENT Surgeries (Bioscope Example)
Placement of Electrodes:
Needle or surface electrodes are placed on or near the muscles controlled by the nerves at risk (e.g., laryngeal muscles for RLN monitoring).
Nerve Stimulation:
Low-level electrical stimulation is applied near the surgical area.
The nerve response is recorded by the electrodes.
Signal Interpretation:
The recorded signals are processed by the Bioscope system.
Waveforms are displayed on the touchscreen and provide visual/audio alerts.
Safety Alerts:
When nerve damage or proximity is detected, the system provides immediate feedback to the surgical team.
Comparison with Other Neuromonitoring Systems
System
Bioscope by Biosys
Brand A
Brand B
Primary Application
ENT (Thyroid, Parathyroid, Facial Surgeries)
ENT, Cranial, Spinal Surgeries
Comprehensive (ENT, Spinal, Brain Surgeries)
Nerves Monitored
RLN, SLN, Facial Nerve
Cranial & Spinal Nerves
Peripheral, Cranial & Spinal Nerves
Alert Systems
Visual & Audio Alerts
Visual & Audio Alerts
Visual & Audio Alerts
Display Type
10.1-inch Touchscreen
Standard LED/Touchscreen
High-Resolution Display
Portability
Yes (Battery-Powered)
No
Yes (Limited)
Cost Efficiency
More Cost-Effective for ENT Applications
Moderate to High
High
Benefits of Using Neuromonitoring in ENT (Ear, Nose, Throat) Surgeries
Neuromonitoring has become a critical tool in ENT surgeries, where preserving nerve function is essential to maintaining speech, facial movements, breathing, swallowing, and hearing. The implementation of neuromonitoring devices, such as the Bioscope by Biosys, provides significant benefits across various ENT procedures.
1. Enhanced Nerve Safety and Preservation
ENT surgeries often involve high-risk nerves like the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (RLN), Superior Laryngeal Nerve (SLN), and Facial Nerve (CN VII).
Real-time monitoring allows surgeons to detect and avoid damage to these nerves during procedures like:
Thyroidectomy and Parathyroidectomy (RLN and SLN monitoring).
Parotid Gland Surgery (Facial Nerve monitoring).
Cochlear Implantation and Mastoidectomy (Facial Nerve monitoring).
Prevents permanent functional loss, including:
Hoarseness or voice loss (RLN injury).
Pitch modulation difficulties (SLN injury).
Facial paralysis or drooping (Facial Nerve injury).
2. Increased Surgical Precision
Visual and Audio Feedback:
Systems like Bioscope provide real-time visual displays and audio alerts when nerves are at risk.
Surgeons can make precise adjustments instantly based on the feedback received.
Better Identification of Nerve Structures:
Improves detection of nerves that are difficult to visualize due to scar tissue, tumors, or anatomical variations.
Enhances precision in tumor resections, parotidectomies, and complex ear surgeries.
3. Reduced Postoperative Complications
Significantly reduces the risk of:
Vocal cord paralysis during thyroid and parathyroid surgeries.
Facial muscle dysfunction following parotid and skull base surgeries.
Swallowing difficulties and airway compromise from nerve damage.
Faster recovery times due to reduced nerve trauma and improved surgical technique.
4. Improved Surgical Outcomes
Enhanced nerve preservation leads to better functional recovery and patient satisfaction.
Reduced rates of reoperation due to nerve damage.
Minimizes the risk of long-term disabilities associated with nerve injuries.
5. Early Detection of Nerve Stress or Injury
Continuous monitoring during surgery helps identify early signs of nerve stress or dysfunction.
Systems like Bioscope alert the surgeon before permanent damage occurs, allowing for immediate correction.
Detection of near-miss injuries prevents complications that may only become evident postoperatively.
6. Cost-Efficiency in Preventing Complications
By preventing nerve damage, neuromonitoring can save significant healthcare costs associated with:
Prolonged hospital stays.
Additional surgeries required to repair nerve damage.
Long-term rehabilitation or therapy costs.
Bioscope’s focus on ENT procedures provides a cost-effective solution specifically tailored for laryngeal and facial nerve monitoring.
7. Enhanced Training and Surgical Education
Neuromonitoring systems provide visual aids and feedback that can be used for educational purposes.
Surgeons in training can learn precise nerve identification and protection techniques with real-time guidance.
8. Better Patient Communication and Satisfaction
The use of neuromonitoring can be explained to patients as a safety measure that enhances surgical precision and reduces risks.
Improved patient confidence in the procedure knowing that measures are in place to protect critical nerves.
9. Minimally Invasive Surgery Compatibility
Neuromonitoring systems like Bioscope can be integrated with minimally invasive surgical techniques, offering benefits such as:
Smaller incisions.
Reduced tissue trauma.
Faster healing and recovery.
10. Integration with Other Surgical Technologies
Neuromonitoring systems can work in tandem with:
Surgical microscopes.
Endoscopic instruments.
Robotic-assisted surgical tools.
Enhances the accuracy of delicate procedures where visualization alone is not sufficient.
Comparison of Benefits: Bioscope vs. Other Systems
SpO₂ stands for peripheral oxygen saturation and indicates the oxygen saturation level in the blood. This value represents the ratio of oxygen-bound hemoglobin to the total hemoglobin. The body requires a certain amount of oxygen to function properly and stay healthy, as low SpO₂ levels can lead to serious complications.
SpO₂ is typically measured non-invasively using a pulse oximeter device placed on the fingertip, earlobe, or toe. This device uses red and infrared light wavelengths to determine the oxygen saturation level of hemoglobin. Normal SpO₂ values are generally considered to range between 95% and 100%. Values below 90% are referred to as hypoxemia, a condition that can negatively impact organ function.
SpO₂ measurement is essential for assessing the efficiency of the respiratory and circulatory systems. It is particularly used for monitoring patients with chronic respiratory diseases, cardiovascular conditions, or those under anesthesia. Low SpO₂ levels may indicate the need for oxygen therapy or other medical interventions.
How is SpO₂ Measured?
SpO₂ is typically measured using non-invasive methods. This measurement is performed through medical devices called pulse oximeters.
Pulse oximeters operate with sensors placed on areas of the body where the skin is thin and blood flow is abundant, such as the fingertip, earlobe, or toe. The device uses two different wavelengths of light to determine the oxygen saturation level of hemoglobin. Oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin absorb these lights at different rates; the device analyzes this difference to calculate the SpO₂ value.
Considerations
Movement and Light Interference: Patient movement or ambient light can affect the accuracy of the measurement. Therefore, it is recommended that the patient remains still during the measurement and that ambient lighting conditions are controlled.
Circulatory Conditions: Cold extremities or low peripheral perfusion may impede the sensor’s ability to collect accurate data. In such cases, relocating the sensor to a different area or addressing the patient’s body temperature may be necessary.
Nail Polish and Artificial Nails: Nail polish or artificial nails can interfere with light absorption, particularly when the sensor is placed on the fingertip, potentially leading to inaccurate results. It is therefore essential to ensure that nails are clean prior to measurement.
Oxygenation Efficiency and SpO₂ Monitoring
Oxygenation efficiency reflects how effectively the body utilizes oxygen. SpO₂ monitoring aids in evaluating this efficiency in the following ways:
Early Warning System: Decreases in SpO₂ levels can be early indicators of issues in the respiratory or circulatory systems. This allows potential problems to be detected and addressed promptly.
Assessment of Treatment Effectiveness: In patients receiving oxygen therapy or ventilatory support, SpO₂ monitoring demonstrates the effectiveness of the treatment and facilitates necessary adjustments.
Management of Chronic Diseases: In conditions such as COPD or asthma, regular SpO₂ monitoring helps track disease progression and prevent exacerbations.
Limitations of SpO₂ Monitoring
While SpO₂ monitoring provides valuable insights into oxygenation efficiency, it has certain limitations:
Anemic Conditions: In cases of low hemoglobin levels, SpO₂ may appear normal despite insufficient oxygen delivery to tissues.
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: Carbon monoxide binds to hemoglobin with greater affinity than oxygen, leading to falsely elevated SpO₂ readings.
Methemoglobinemia: In this condition, SpO₂ measurements typically stabilize around 85%, providing misleading information about the actual oxygenation status.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is anormal SpO₂? A normal SpO₂ value in a healthy individual typically ranges between 95% and 100%.
What does low SpO₂ mean? Low SpO₂ indicates that the oxygen level in the blood is below normal, suggesting insufficient oxygen delivery to tissues. This condition, known as hypoxemia, can be a sign of serious health issues.
References
Dcosta, Jostin Vinroy, Daniel Ochoa, and Sébastien Sanaur. “Recent Progress in Flexible and Wearable All Organic Photoplethysmography Sensors for SpO2 Monitoring.” Advanced Science 10.31 (2023): 2302752.
Mc Namara, Helen M., and Gary A. Dildy III. “Continuous intrapartum pH, pO2, pCO2, and SpO2 monitoring.” Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America 26.4 (1999): 671-693.
Eriş, Ömer, et al. “İnternet Üzerinden Hasta Takibi Amaçlı PIC Mikrodenetleyici Tabanlı Kablosuz Pals-Oksimetre Ölçme Sistemi Tasarımı ve LabVIEW Uygulaması.” VII. Ulusal Tıp Bilişimi Kongresi Bildirileri 16 (2010): 16-25.
A neuromonitoring system (neuromonitor) is a sophisticated medical device designed to assess the integrity and functionality of the nervous system in real-time. It consists of several interdependent technical components that work in harmony to detect, amplify, process, and interpret neural signals during surgical procedures, critical care, and diagnostic evaluations.
The core elements of a neuromonitoring system can be categorized into hardware, software, and user interfaces, each contributing to the accuracy, reliability, and clinical utility of the system. Understanding these components is crucial to appreciating how neuromonitoring enhances patient safety and surgical precision.
Main Parts of a Neuromonitoring System
Electrodes & Sensors (Signal Detection)
EEG Electrodes:
Detect brain electrical activity, usually placed on the scalp.
Assess sensory pathway integrity by recording neural responses to sensory stimulation (e.g., electrical, tactile).
Often used in spinal surgeries.
MEP Electrodes (Motor Evoked Potentials):
Monitor motor pathway integrity by detecting muscle responses following nerve stimulation.
Essential in procedures where motor nerve function is at risk.
Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS):
Measures brain oxygenation levels non-invasively.
Commonly used in ICU settings and brain surgeries.
Intracranial Pressure (ICP) Sensors:
Monitor pressure within the skull, especially important in trauma or brain injury management.
Stimulators (Signal Generation)
Electrical Stimulators:
Provide precise electrical pulses to stimulate nerves for evoked potential monitoring (MEPs, SSEPs).
Can be surface-based or needle-based depending on application.
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS):
Non-invasive method of stimulating cortical motor areas.
Useful in mapping functional brain areas during surgery.
Signal Amplifiers (Signal Processing)
High-Gain Amplifiers:
Boost weak neural signals to measurable levels without distortion.
Essential for processing EEG, EMG, SSEP, and MEP signals.
Noise Filters:
Digital and analog filters used to reduce background noise from muscle movement, eye blinks, or other interferences.
Data Acquisition System (Interface)
Converts analog signals from electrodes into digital signals for further processing.
Usually connected to a computer or monitoring device via a specialized interface card.
Computer System & Software (Data Analysis)
Signal Analysis Software:
Processes and interprets signals in real-time.
Provides visual displays (e.g., waveforms, brain mapping) for immediate feedback.
AI-Based Algorithms (Optional):
Advanced systems may use machine learning for pattern recognition to detect anomalies such as ischemia or seizures.
User Interface:
Touchscreen panels, monitors, or remote control systems for data visualization and control.
Display & Alert System (Output)
Real-Time Monitoring Displays:
Visual representation of neural signals in various formats (waveforms, 3D mapping, etc.).
Audio & Visual Alerts:
Provide immediate feedback when signal thresholds exceed safety limits, enabling prompt intervention.
Data Storage & Communication (Optional)
Systems may include cloud-based storage or network integration for remote monitoring and data sharing.
Useful in research, telemedicine applications, and postoperative monitoring.
Parts You’ll Need to Build a Basic Neuromonitoring System
Signal Acquisition Devices: EEG, EMG, MEP, SSEP, NIRS, ICP sensors.
Signal Stimulators: Electrical or magnetic stimulators.
Amplification System: High-gain amplifiers and noise filters.
Data Acquisition Hardware: Analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) and interface cards.
Software Platform: Signal analysis tools, machine learning modules (if needed).
Display and Alert System: Visual interface, alarms, and feedback systems.
Communication Module (Optional): Cloud storage or remote monitoring software.
Assembling a Fully Functional Neuromonitoring System
Building a neuromonitoring system from components requires a combination of hardware, software, and signal processing tools. Below is a step-by-step guide to assembling a basic yet effective system, followed by a cost and availability comparison.
Step 1: Gather Essential Components
Signal Acquisition Devices (Sensors & Electrodes)
EEG Electrodes (scalp and depth electrodes) – Cost: $50 – $200 per set
EMG Electrodes (surface and needle) – Cost: $30 – $100 per pair
SSEP and MEP Electrodes – Cost: $100 – $300 per set
Mechanical ventilation plays a critical role in addressing the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying acute respiratory failure (ARF). By correcting gas exchange abnormalities, reducing respiratory muscle workload, and preventing complications, it provides essential support for patients in critical conditions (1,5,7,8). Below, specific mechanisms of mechanical ventilation are linked to the pathophysiological issues they target to enhance clarity and coherence.
Correction of Hypoxemia
One of the primary goals of mechanical ventilation in ARF is to address hypoxemia caused by mechanisms such as ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) mismatch, shunting, or diffusion impairment.
Mechanism: Mechanical ventilation increases the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂), ensuring higher oxygen availability in the alveoli, which is crucial for patients with reduced oxygenation due to pneumonia, ARDS, or pulmonary embolism.
PEEP (Positive End-Expiratory Pressure): PEEP prevents alveolar collapse during exhalation by maintaining positive pressure in the lungs, thereby improving functional residual capacity (FRC). This is particularly effective in conditions involving alveolar instability, such as ARDS or atelectasis.
Link to Pathophysiology: In cases of shunting, where blood bypasses ventilated alveoli, PEEP recruits collapsed alveoli and redistributes ventilation, reducing hypoxemia.
Removal of Hypercapnia
Hypercapnia in ARF arises from hypoventilation or increased dead space, as seen in conditions like COPD exacerbations or severe obesity hypoventilation syndrome.
Mechanism: Mechanical ventilation increases minute ventilation by optimizing tidal volume (VT) and respiratory rate. By enhancing the removal of carbon dioxide, it normalizes arterial pH and relieves respiratory acidosis.
Pressure-Control Ventilation (PCV): PCV is particularly beneficial in hypercapnic ARF as it delivers preset pressure during inspiration, ensuring adequate ventilation while minimizing airway pressures.
Link to Pathophysiology: In hypoventilation-related hypercapnia, increasing ventilatory support reduces carbon dioxide retention, reversing acidemia and preventing hemodynamic instability.
Reduction of Work of Breathing
ARF often places a high workload on respiratory muscles, leading to fatigue and eventual failure, especially in conditions like COPD exacerbations or severe asthma.
Mechanism: Mechanical ventilation reduces the effort required to breathe by delivering positive pressure during inspiration. Modes like pressure support ventilation (PSV) and assist-control ventilation (ACV) enable respiratory muscle rest while maintaining adequate ventilation.
Link to Pathophysiology: By decreasing the work of breathing, mechanical ventilation prevents respiratory muscle exhaustion, a key contributor to hypercapnic ARF.
Alveolar Recruitment and Stabilization
Alveolar recruitment strategies are critical for restoring effective gas exchange in conditions like ARDS, where alveolar collapse and severe V/Q mismatch are common.
Mechanism: PEEP and lung-protective ventilation strategies, such as low tidal volumes, recruit and stabilize alveoli, increasing the surface area available for gas exchange.
Link to Pathophysiology: In ARDS, where alveolar collapse exacerbates shunting, PEEP opens collapsed alveoli, improving oxygenation and reducing the severity of hypoxemia.
Prevention of Secondary Complications
Mechanical ventilation provides controlled respiratory support that reduces the risk of secondary complications such as aspiration, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), or multi-organ failure.
Mechanism: Secure airway management with invasive mechanical ventilation protects against aspiration, while precise ventilator settings minimize barotrauma and ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI).
Link to Pathophysiology: By addressing hypoxemia and hypercapnia, mechanical ventilation prevents systemic complications like hypoxia-induced multi-organ failure and maintains hemodynamic stability.
Mechanical ventilation compensates for the physiological disruptions seen in ARF by targeting specific mechanisms like V/Q mismatch, diffusion impairment, and increased work of breathing. Each intervention, whether optimizing oxygenation, reducing carbon dioxide levels, or stabilizing alveolar function, is tailored to the patient’s underlying pathology.
This ensures effective management of ARF while minimizing complications, emphasizing the indispensable role of mechanical ventilation in critical care settings (1-8,10).
Types of Mechanical Ventilation
Mechanical ventilation is classified into invasive and non-invasive methods, each with specific applications based on the patient’s condition and therapeutic needs (9-11). Both types play a vital role in the management of acute respiratory failure (ARF), with the choice determined by the severity of respiratory dysfunction and the clinical response to treatment (10).
Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV)
Non-invasive ventilation delivers respiratory support through a mask or nasal interface, avoiding the need for intubation. It is particularly effective in patients with mild to moderate ARF who are conscious and able to protect their airway.
Mechanism: NIV enhances oxygenation and ventilation using positive airway pressure, which prevents alveolar collapse and reduces the work of breathing.
Common Modes:
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP): Maintains constant positive airway pressure throughout the respiratory cycle, improving oxygenation in conditions such as cardiogenic pulmonary edema.
Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP): Alternates between inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) and expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP), facilitating both oxygenation and ventilation, particularly in hypercapnic ARF seen in COPD exacerbations.
Clinical Application: NIV is widely used in exacerbations of chronic conditions like COPD, mild ARDS, and heart failure, where it can stabilize gas exchange and reduce the need for intubation.
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (IMV)
In cases where non-invasive ventilation fails to stabilize ARF or is contraindicated, invasive mechanical ventilation provides controlled respiratory support through an endotracheal or tracheostomy tube.
Mechanism: IMV directly accesses the airway, ensuring precise delivery of oxygen, removal of carbon dioxide, and reduction of respiratory muscle workload. It also facilitates better protection against aspiration in patients with altered mental status or significant secretions.
Common Modes:
Assist-Control Ventilation (ACV): Delivers a preset tidal volume or pressure with every breath, whether initiated by the patient or the ventilator. ACV provides full respiratory support, ideal for patients with severe ARF and minimal respiratory effort.
Synchronized Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation (SIMV): Combines mandatory ventilator-delivered breaths with the patient’s spontaneous breaths. It is frequently used during weaning to encourage respiratory muscle activity.
Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV): Supports spontaneous breathing by delivering a set inspiratory pressure. It is commonly employed during recovery or as a step-down mode in the weaning process.
Clinical Application: IMV is indicated in severe ARF with refractory hypoxemia, hypercapnia unresponsive to NIV, or conditions like ARDS, where invasive strategies like lung-protective ventilation and high PEEP are essential.
Non-invasive ventilation often serves as the first-line treatment in ARF. However, in some cases, such as persistent hypoxemia, rising carbon dioxide levels, or respiratory distress that worsens despite NIV, transitioning to invasive mechanical ventilation becomes necessary to ensure adequate respiratory support and prevent further deterioration (9–11). The specific criteria and clinical scenarios guiding this transition will be examined in a subsequent section.
By tailoring the type of mechanical ventilation to the patient’s condition and response, clinicians can optimize outcomes while minimizing complications.
Modes of Mechanical Ventilation for ARF Treatment
The choice of mechanical ventilation mode in acute respiratory failure (ARF) is determined by the underlying pathology, severity of respiratory compromise, and patient-specific factors (11,12). Optimizing the mode of ventilation is essential to ensure adequate gas exchange while minimizing complications (12). Below, the most commonly used modes are outlined, with an emphasis on their applications and clinical significance.
Assist-Control Ventilation (ACV)
ACV provides full respiratory support by delivering a preset tidal volume (VT) or pressure with each breath, regardless of whether the breath is initiated by the patient or the ventilator.
Application: This mode is typically used in severe ARF, particularly in conditions such as ARDS or pneumonia, where patients may have minimal or absent spontaneous respiratory effort.
Advantages: Guarantees consistent ventilation and simplifies management in critically ill patients.
SIMV delivers a set number of mandatory breaths, synchronized with the patient’s spontaneous respiratory efforts, allowing for unassisted breaths in between.
Application: Often employed as an intermediate step in patients transitioning from full ventilatory support to spontaneous breathing, such as during the weaning process.
Advantages: Promotes respiratory muscle activity while providing a safety net of mandatory ventilator breaths.
Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV)
PSV augments spontaneous breathing by providing a preset level of inspiratory pressure, reducing the effort required for inspiration.
Application: Commonly used in patients with preserved respiratory drive, such as those recovering from ARF or during non-invasive ventilation (NIV).
Advantages: Improves patient comfort, reduces work of breathing, and facilitates weaning from invasive ventilation.
Volume-Controlled and Pressure-Controlled Ventilation (VCV/PCV)
Volume-Controlled Ventilation (VCV) delivers a preset tidal volume, with airway pressure varying depending on lung compliance and resistance.
Application: Used in patients requiring precise control of minute ventilation, such as those with hypercapnia.
Pressure-Controlled Ventilation (PCV) delivers a preset pressure during inspiration, with tidal volume varying based on lung compliance.
Application: Beneficial in patients with reduced lung compliance, such as in ARDS, to limit peak airway pressures and reduce the risk of barotrauma.
High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation (HFOV)
HFOV delivers very small tidal volumes at high frequencies, maintaining continuous positive airway pressure.
Application: A rescue strategy for refractory hypoxemia in ARDS when conventional ventilation fails.
Advantages: Minimizes ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) by preventing alveolar overdistension.
Clinical Significance
The selection of the appropriate mode of mechanical ventilation in ARF is crucial for optimizing outcomes and minimizing complications. For instance, lung-protective ventilation strategies, such as low tidal volume ventilation in ARDS, reduce the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury (11). Modes like SIMV and PSV play key roles in facilitating weaning and restoring spontaneous respiratory function (11). By tailoring ventilation modes to the individual needs of patients, clinicians can address the specific pathophysiological challenges of ARF while improving survival and recovery rates (11-15).
Advanced Modes of Mechanical Ventilation: ASV, SAV, and NAVA
With the evolution of mechanical ventilation, advanced modes like Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV), SmartCare/Automated Ventilation (SAV), and Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) have emerged as pivotal tools in modern respiratory care. These modes leverage intelligent algorithms and neural control mechanisms to enhance patient outcomes, improve synchronization, and simplify clinical workflows. Below is a comprehensive discussion of each mode and its clinical significance (23-25).
Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV)
What is ASV? ASV is an intelligent mode of mechanical ventilation that automatically adjusts ventilatory support based on the patient’s respiratory mechanics and effort. It uses algorithms to calculate the ideal tidal volume and respiratory rate based on the patient’s predicted body weight, lung compliance, and airway resistance (22-25).
How ASV Works:
ASV continuously monitors the patient’s spontaneous breathing.
It dynamically adjusts the inspiratory pressure and ventilatory rate to meet the patient’s metabolic demand while preventing over-distension or atelectasis.
This mode ensures minimal work of breathing while maintaining target minute ventilation.
Benefits of ASV:
Automatically reduces support as the patient’s respiratory effort improves, facilitating a smooth transition from controlled to spontaneous breathing.
Decreases the risk of hyperventilation, barotrauma, and ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) (23,24).
Improves patient-ventilator synchrony, reducing discomfort and sedation requirements (24).
Evidence and Clinical Applications:
Studies have shown ASV to be effective in both acute and chronic respiratory failure. For example, research published in Critical Care (Arnal et al., 2008) demonstrated that ASV reduced ventilation duration compared to traditional modes in post-operative ICU patients (26).
It is widely used in settings requiring dynamic adaptation, such as weaning and managing variable lung mechanics in conditions like ARDS or COPD exacerbations (27).
SmartCare/Automated Ventilation (SAV)
What is SAV? SmartCare/Automated Ventilation is a closed-loop ventilation system designed primarily to automate the weaning process. It uses an artificial intelligence algorithm to assess and adjust ventilatory support based on real-time patient parameters (25,28-31).
How SAV Works:
SAV continuously monitors the patient’s respiratory rate, tidal volume, and end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO₂).
Based on these parameters, it adjusts pressure support levels to ensure adequate ventilation and oxygenation.
When the algorithm determines that the patient can sustain spontaneous breathing, it suggests readiness for extubation.
Benefits of SAV:
Speeds up the weaning process by reducing the need for manual adjustments (22-31).
Prevents premature or delayed extubation by following evidence-based criteria.
Reduces the workload for ICU staff and standardizes the weaning process.
Evidence and Clinical Applications:
Clinical trials, such as those published in Intensive Care Medicine (Lellouche et al., 2006), have shown that SmartCare reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay while improving extubation success rates (31).
SAV is especially useful in ICUs with high patient volumes or variability in care protocols (24-31).
Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA)
What is NAVA Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) is an advanced mode of mechanical ventilation that directly uses the patient’s neural respiratory drive to control ventilatory support. Unlike traditional modes that rely on airway pressure or flow triggers, NAVA is driven by electrical activity in the diaphragm (Edi), offering highly personalized and precise ventilation (25-34).
How NAVA Works?
Edi Catheter: A specialized nasogastric catheter detects electrical signals from the diaphragm during the patient’s spontaneous breathing efforts.
Signal Processing: These signals (Edi) are analyzed in real-time to determine the timing, duration, and intensity of inspiratory effort.
Ventilator Response: The ventilator delivers pressure support proportional to the patient’s effort, ensuring optimal synchronization and avoiding over-assistance or under-assistance.
Advantages of NAVA
Improved Patient-Ventilator Synchrony: NAVA directly responds to the patient’s neural respiratory signals, eliminating delays and mismatches that occur with pressure or flow triggering. Reduces asynchrony-related complications, such as ineffective efforts, double triggering, and patient discomfort.
Reduction in Sedation Needs: By providing natural, synchronized support, NAVA minimizes the discomfort associated with mechanical ventilation, reducing the need for sedatives.
Enhanced Respiratory Muscle Protection: Unlike traditional modes that can over-assist, leading to respiratory muscle atrophy, NAVA ensures the diaphragm remains active, maintaining muscle strength and endurance.
Personalized Ventilation: Adapts dynamically to the patient’s changing respiratory demands, particularly in conditions like ARDS, COPD, or neuromuscular disorders.
Clinical Applications of NAVA
ARDS and Acute Respiratory Failure (ARF): NAVA provides lung-protective ventilation by avoiding overdistension and barotrauma while maintaining synchrony (38).
Neonatal and Pediatric Ventilation: Especially useful in premature infants and pediatric patients, where synchrony challenges are common with traditional modes (36-37,39-43).
Weaning: Facilitates a gradual reduction in ventilatory support by responding to the patient’s natural efforts (44-45).
NAVA represents a significant advancement in mechanical ventilation, focusing on precision and patient-centric care by using the diaphragm’s electrical activity to guide support. Its ability to enhance patient-ventilator synchrony, reduce sedation needs, and protect respiratory muscles makes it an invaluable mode in both adult and pediatric populations. When combined with other modes like ASV and SAV, NAVA provides a versatile and comprehensive approach to managing acute respiratory failure.
When to Transition from Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (NIMV) to Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (IMV) in ARF
Non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) is often the first-line treatment for acute respiratory failure (ARF) in specific conditions like COPD exacerbations or mild-to-moderate hypoxemia. However, in some cases, NIMV may fail to provide adequate support, requiring a transition to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) to prevent further deterioration. Here are the key indicators and clinical scenarios to consider transitioning:
1. Worsening Gas Exchange Despite NIMV
Signs:
Persistent or worsening hypoxemia (PaO₂ < 60 mmHg on FiO₂ ≥ 0.6).
Reason: Indicates systemic compromise that requires better oxygenation and ventilation control via IMV.
5. Risk of Aspiration or Airway Protection Issues
Signs:
Inability to clear secretions or significant mucus plugging.
Frequent vomiting or risk of aspiration (e.g., altered consciousness).
Reason: IMV is necessary to secure the airway with an endotracheal tube to prevent aspiration-related complications.
6. Failure to Tolerate NIMV
Signs:
Poor mask seal due to facial anatomy or agitation.
Skin breakdown or discomfort causing discontinuation of therapy.
Reason: Intolerance to NIMV can reduce adherence, rendering it ineffective.
7. No Clinical Improvement Within 1–2 Hours of NIMV
Signs:
Lack of improvement in respiratory rate, gas exchange, or oxygenation after 1–2 hours of optimal NIMV.
Reason: Delaying the switch to IMV increases the risk of respiratory arrest and worsens outcomes.
The decision to switch from NIMV to IMV in ARF should be guided by clinical judgment, monitoring of gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and overall patient stability. Early recognition of NIMV failure and timely intubation improve outcomes and prevent complications associated with delayed intervention (12-14, 16-21).
References
Kapil S, Wilson JG. Mechanical Ventilation in Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2019;37(3):431-444. doi:10.1016/j.emc.2019.04.005
Delerme S, Ray P. Acute respiratory failure in the elderly: diagnosis and prognosis. Age Ageing. 2008;37(3):251-257. doi:10.1093/ageing/afn060
Antro C, Merico F, Urbino R, Gai V. Non-invasive ventilation as a first-line treatment for acute respiratory failure: “real life” experience in the emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2005;22(11):772-777. doi:10.1136/emj.2004.018309
Piraino T. Noninvasive Respiratory Support in Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure. Respir Care. 2019;64(6):638-646. doi:10.4187/respcare.06735
Abellan C, Bertin C, Fumeaux T, Carrel L. Insuffisance respiratoire aiguë : prise en charge hospitalière non invasive [Acute respiratory failure : non-invasive hospital management]. Rev Med Suisse. 2020;16(705):1636-1644.
Munshi L, Mancebo J, Brochard LJ. Noninvasive Respiratory Support for Adults with Acute Respiratory Failure. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(18):1688-1698. doi:10.1056/NEJMra2204556
Pisani L, Corcione N, Nava S. Management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2016;22(1):45-52. doi:10.1097/MCC.0000000000000269
Liu YJ, Zhao J, Tang H. Non-invasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure: a meta-analysis. Clin Med (Lond). 2016;16(6):514-523. doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.16-6-514
Pham T, Brochard LJ, Slutsky AS. Mechanical Ventilation: State of the Art. Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92(9):1382-1400. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.05.004
Tobin MJ, Laghi F, Jubran A. Ventilatory failure, ventilator support, and ventilator weaning. Compr Physiol. 2012;2(4):2871-2921. doi:10.1002/cphy.c110030
Tobin, M. J. (2013). Principles and practice of mechanical ventilation, 3e. McGraw-Hill Education LLC.
Pinsky MR. Toward a better ventilation strategy for patients with acute lung injury. Crit Care. 2000;4(4):205-206. doi:10.1186/cc695
Rochwerg B, Brochard L, Elliott MW, et al. Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J. 2017;50(2):1602426. Published 2017 Aug 31. doi:10.1183/13993003.02426-2016
Torres A, Niederman MS, Chastre J, et al. International ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia: Guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP)/ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax (ALAT). Eur Respir J. 2017;50(3):1700582. Published 2017 Sep 10. doi:10.1183/13993003.00582-2017
Oczkowski S, Ergan B, Bos L, et al. ERS clinical practice guidelines: high-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J. 2022;59(4):2101574. Published 2022 Apr 14. doi:10.1183/13993003.01574-2021
Luo F, Annane D, Orlikowski D, et al. Invasive versus non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure in neuromuscular disease and chest wall disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;12(12):CD008380. Published 2017 Dec 4. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008380.pub2
Blumenthal JA, Duvall MG. Invasive and noninvasive ventilation strategies for acute respiratory failure in children with coronavirus disease 2019. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2021;33(3):311-318. doi:10.1097/MOP.0000000000001021
Shang P, Zhu M, Baker M, Feng J, Zhou C, Zhang HL. Mechanical ventilation in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2020;16(11):1053-1064. doi:10.1080/1744666X.2021.1840355
Davidson AC, Banham S, Elliott M, et al. BTS/ICS guideline for the ventilatory management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in adults [published correction appears in Thorax. 2017 Jun;72(6):588. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-208209corr1]. Thorax. 2016;71 Suppl 2:ii1-ii35. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-208209
Kress JP, O’Connor MF, Schmidt GA. Clinical examination reliably detects intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;159(1):290-294. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.159.1.9805011
Rittayamai N, Katsios CM, Beloncle F, Friedrich JO, Mancebo J, Brochard L. Pressure-Controlled vs Volume-Controlled Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure: A Physiology-Based Narrative and Systematic Review. Chest. 2015;148(2):340-355. doi:10.1378/chest.14-3169
Dai YL, Hsu RJ, Huang HK, et al. Adaptive support ventilation attenuates postpneumonectomy acute lung injury in a porcine model. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2020;31(5):718-726. doi:10.1093/icvts/ivaa157
Buiteman-Kruizinga LA, Mkadmi HE, Schultz MJ, Tangkau PL, van der Heiden PLJ. Comparison of Mechanical Power During Adaptive Support Ventilation Versus Nonautomated Pressure-Controlled Ventilation-A Pilot Study. Crit Care Explor. 2021;3(2):e0335. Published 2021 Feb 15. doi:10.1097/CCE.0000000000000335
Fernández J, Miguelena D, Mulett H, Godoy J, Martinón-Torres F. Adaptive support ventilation: State of the art review. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2013;17(1):16-22. doi:10.4103/0972-5229.112149
Arnal JM, Wysocki M, Nafati C, et al. Automatic selection of breathing pattern using adaptive support ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34(1):75-81. doi:10.1007/s00134-007-0847-0
Zhu F, Gomersall CD, Ng SK, Underwood MJ, Lee A. A randomized controlled trial of adaptive support ventilation mode to wean patients after fast-track cardiac valvular surgery. Anesthesiology. 2015;122(4):832-840. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000000589
Rose L, Schultz MJ, Cardwell CR, Jouvet P, McAuley DF, Blackwood B. Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(6):CD009235. Published 2014 Jun 10. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009235.pub3
Rose L, Schultz MJ, Cardwell CR, Jouvet P, McAuley DF, Blackwood B. Automated versus non-automated weaning for reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation for critically ill adults and children: a cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):48. Published 2015 Feb 24. doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0755-6
Wysocki M, Jouvet P, Jaber S. Closed loop mechanical ventilation. J Clin Monit Comput. 2014;28(1):49-56. doi:10.1007/s10877-013-9465-2
Lellouche F, Mancebo J, Jolliet P, et al. A multicenter randomized trial of computer-driven protocolized weaning from mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174(8):894-900. doi:10.1164/rccm.200511-1780OC
Shah SD, Anjum F. Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA). In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; May 22, 2023.
Sheng Y, Shao W, Wang Y, Kang X, Hu R. Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2023;35(11):1229-1232. doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20230222-00101
Vahedi NB, Ramazan-Yousif L, Andersen TS, Jensen HI. Implementation of Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA): Patient characteristics and staff experiences. J Healthc Qual Res. 2020;35(4):253-260. doi:10.1016/j.jhqr.2020.03.008
Mandyam S, Qureshi M, Katamreddy Y, et al. Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist Versus Pressure Support Ventilation: A Comprehensive Review. J Intensive Care Med. 2024;39(12):1194-1203. doi:10.1177/08850666231212807
Sugunan P, Hosheh O, Garcia Cusco M, Mildner R. Neurally-Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) versus Pneumatically Synchronized Ventilation Modes in Children Admitted to PICU. J Clin Med. 2021;10(15):3393. Published 2021 Jul 30. doi:10.3390/jcm10153393
Umbrello M, Antonucci E, Muttini S. Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist in Acute Respiratory Failure-A Narrative Review. J Clin Med. 2022;11(7):1863. Published 2022 Mar 28. doi:10.3390/jcm11071863
Beck J, Emeriaud G, Liu Y, Sinderby C. Neurally-adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) in children: a systematic review. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016;82(8):874-883.
Minamitani Y, Miyahara N, Saito K, Kanai M, Namba F, Ota E. Noninvasive neurally-adjusted ventilatory assist in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2024;37(1):2415373. doi:10.1080/14767058.2024.2415373
Fang SJ, Su CH, Liao DL, et al. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist for rapid weaning in preterm infants. Pediatr Int. 2023;65(1):e15360. doi:10.1111/ped.15360
Rossor TE, Hunt KA, Shetty S, Greenough A. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist compared to other forms of triggered ventilation for neonatal respiratory support. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;10(10):CD012251. Published 2017 Oct 27. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012251.pub2
Stein H, Beck J, Dunn M. Non-invasive ventilation with neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in newborns. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;21(3):154-161. doi:10.1016/j.siny.2016.01.006
Liu L, Xu X, Sun Q, et al. Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist versus Pressure Support Ventilation in Difficult Weaning: A Randomized Trial. Anesthesiology. 2020;132(6):1482-1493. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000003207
Yuan X, Lu X, Chao Y, et al. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist as a weaning mode for adults with invasive mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):222. Published 2021 Jun 29. doi:10.1186/s13054-021-03644-z
