Respiratory neuromodulation in patients with neurological pathologies: for whom and how?

Implanted phrenic nerve stimulation is a technique restoring spontaneous breathing in patients with respiratory control failure, leading to being dependent on mechanical ventilation. This is the case for quadriplegic patients with a high spinal cord injury level and for patients with congenital central hypoventilation syndrome. The electrophysiological diaphragm explorations permits better patient selection, confirming on the one hand a definite issue with central respiratory command and on the other hand the integrity of diaphragmatic phrenic nerves. Today there are two different phrenic stimulation techniques: the quadripolar intrathoracic stimulation and the bipolar intradiaphragmatic stimulation. Both techniques allow patients to be weaned off their mechanical ventilator, improving dramatically their quality of life. In fact, one of the systems (phrenic intradiaphragmatic stimulation) was granted social security reimbursement in 2009, and now both are reimbursed. In the future, phrenic intradiaphragmatic stimulation may find its place in the intensive care unit, for patients needing it temporarily, for example, after certain surgeries with respiratory complications as well as diaphragmatic atrophies induced by prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Diaphragm pacing restores olfaction in tetraplegia.

High cervical spinal cord injuries induce extreme handicap and tactile isolation. Tracheotomised tetraplegic patients are also bound to be olfaction deprived. By restoring negative pressure inspiration, diaphragm pacing (DP) should improve olfaction. We tested olfaction in 10 consecutive tetraplegics during positive pressure mechanical ventilation and DP, using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). Quality of life was assessed using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Self-perceived benefits of DP were studied using an in-house questionnaire. Olfaction was very poor during positive pressure mechanical ventilation (UPSIT, mean+/-SD 17.1+/-6.4, anosmia or severe microsmia). It improved during DP (35.2+/-1.9, normosmia or mild microsmia; p<0.0001) and SWLS was 18.5+/-4.2. Nine patients stated that DP had improved their quality of life. This was driven by better mobility (ranked first), improved self-image and relationships with others (ranked second), improved olfaction and better feeling of security (both ranked third). Improved olfaction is among the benefits of DP and should be mentioned to patients considered for this therapy. Furthermore, attention to olfaction is warranted in tracheotomised ventilator-dependent patients, as a putative path towards improvement of quality of life.

Effects of upper airway anaesthesia on respiratory-related evoked potentials in humans.

Cortical potentials evoked by mid-inspiratory occlusion arise from numerous receptors, many of which are probably within the upper airway. Their precise nature is not known. The aim of the current study was to improve knowledge of this by studying the effects of topical upper airway anaesthesia on respiratory-related evoked potentials. Respiratory-related evoked potentials were described through the averaging of electroencephalogram (EEG) epochs following mid-inspiratory occlusions (C3-CZ; C4-CZ). A total of 21 healthy volunteers (13 male, aged 22-52 yrs) were studied during mouth breathing, before and after topical upper airway anaesthesia (lidocaine). Moreover, 15 subjects were studied during nose breathing with and without anaesthesia. Six subjects were studied whilst inhaling L-menthol. Typical potentials were present in all the subjects, their components featuring normal amplitudes and latencies. The route of breathing and upper airway anaesthesia did not modify the EEG responses to inspiratory occlusions, qualitatively or quantitatively, during mouth or nose breathing. L-menthol had no effect. Upper airway receptors sensitive to topical anaesthesia are unlikely to contribute significantly to mid-inspiratory occlusion-evoked potentials. On the contrary, deeper receptors, such as joint and muscle receptors, could contribute dominantly to these potentials.

Dysfunction of phrenic pacemakers induced by metallic rescue blankets.

Phrenic pacing can restore diaphragmatic contractions in patients with central respiratory paralysis. It relies on radiofrequency transmission of energy from an external unit to implanted receivers through circular coil antennas. The case of a patient is reported in whom severe hypoventilation occurred following the use of a metallic rescue blanket. The phenomenon was confirmed in two subsequent patients and during benchmark tests. Possible mechanisms include reflection and diffusion of high frequency waves by a Faraday-like effect. Patients with implanted devices relying on telemetric control or powering, and their care givers, should be warned against the use of metallic rescue sheets.

Influence of neck muscles on mouth pressure response to cervical magnetic stimulation.

Measurement of mouth pressure (Pm) in response to electrical phrenic nerve stimulation (Es) provides a simple noninvasive means to assess diaphragm function. An even simpler measure would be to use the Pm twitch response (Pm,t) to cervical magnetic stimulation (CMS) rather than to Es. Because CMS coactivates the diaphragm and inspiratory neck muscles (INM), CMS-Pm,t accurately reflects diaphragm function only if the corresponding INM contraction does not produce inspiratory pressures by itself. In patients with recent-onset bilateral diaphragm paralysis, it has been demonstrated that CMS-Pm,t was indeed zero; however, INM hypertrophy could change this situation and lead CMS-Pm,t to overestimate the performance of the diaphragm. To address this issue, we studied nine patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) who had evidence of diaphragmatic paralysis and compensatory hypertrophy and hyperactivity of inspiratory neck muscles. The response to CMS was described in terms of diaphragm electromyogram (EMG), Pm, and abdominal (AB) and rib cage (RC) motion. No EMG response to CMS could be observed in most cases, and CMS was always associated with AB paradox. Nevertheless, a negative Pm,t swing was recorded with an amplitude of -2.6 +/- 1.0 cm H2O (mean +/- SD). We conclude that inspiratory neck muscle hypertrophy can significantly influence the Pm response to CMS. This should be taken into account when using the CMS-Pm combination in patients with possible chronic diaphragm dysfunction.

Comparison of magnetic and electrical phrenic nerve stimulation in assessment of phrenic nerve conduction time.

Cervical magnetic stimulation (CMS), a nonvolitional test of diaphragm function, is an easy means for measuring the latency of the diaphragm motor response to phrenic nerve stimulation, namely, phrenic nerve conduction time (PNCT). In this application, CMS has some practical advantages over electrical stimulation of the phrenic nerve in the neck (ES). Although normal ES-PNCTs have been consistently reported between 7 and 8 ms, data are less homogeneous for CMS-PNCTs, with some reports suggesting lower values. This study systematically compares ES- and CMS-PNCTs for the same subjects. Surface recordings of diaphragmatic electromyographic activity were obtained for seven healthy volunteers during ES and CMS of varying intensities. On average, ES-PNCTs amounted to 6.41 +/- 0.84 ms and were little influenced by stimulation intensity. With CMS, PNCTs were significantly lower (average difference 1.05 ms), showing a marked increase as CMS intensity lessened. ES and CMS values became comparable for a CMS intensity 65% of the maximal possible intensity of 2.5 Tesla. These findings may be the result of phrenic nerve depolarization occurring more distally than expected with CMS, which may have clinical implications regarding the diagnosis and follow-up of phrenic nerve lesions.

Assessment of the motor pathway to the diaphragm using cortical and cervical magnetic stimulation in the decision-making process of phrenic pacing.

BACKGROUND: Phrenic nerve pacing is a recognized substitute to positive pressure ventilation via tracheotomy in patients with high cervical cord lesions or central hypoventilation. Although its indications are infrequent, reliable strategies need to be used in the determinations of patients who may benefit from this treatment; contraindications should be carefully respected. STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine whether modern and noninvasive means to study the motor pathway to the diaphragm, namely cortical magnetic stimulation (CxMS) and cervical magnetic stimulation (CMS), can contribute to the selection of patients who may benefit from phrenic pacing. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective study (18 months), on a consecutive basis, of patients referred for possible phrenic pacing to a 10-bed ICU associated with a respiratory neurophysiology laboratory. PATIENTS: Seven patients (high cervical cord injury, n = 5; central hypoventilation following neurosurgery, n = 1; idiopathic acquired central hypoventilation, n = 1). INTERVENTION, MEASUREMENTS, AND RESULTS: Electromyography of the diaphragm and transdiaphragmatic pressure were assessed in response to CxMS and CMS. In three cases, no interruption of the corticodiaphragmatic pathway was evidenced, the decision of pacing was postponed, and the patients eventually recovered a spontaneous breathing activity. In two cases, the diagnosis of irreversible peripheral phrenic dysfunction was reached and pacing was denied. In two cases, complete interruption of the corticodiaphragmatic pathway and integrity of peripheral conduction led to the decision of phrenic pacemaker implantation. CONCLUSION: CxMS and CMS can be used to refine the assessment of patients proposed for phrenic pacing. CxMS can possibly identify those in whom there is a possibility for eventual recovery, and therefore substantiate a decision to postpone the pacing.