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.