|
|
||||||||
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password |
|||||||||
* From the Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Correspondence to: M. Jeffery Mador, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care & Sleep Medicine, Section 111S, State University of New York at Buffalo, Veterans Administration Medical Center, 3495 Bailey Ave, Buffalo, NY 14215; e-mail: Mador{at}acsu.buffalo.edu
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Subjects: Twelve healthy subjects participated in the study.
Methods: TwPdi was measured during TES, CMS, and BAMPS before and 10, 30, and 60 min after a potentially fatiguing task. Voluntary hyperpnea to task failure was used as the fatiguing task because this task has previously been shown to reliably produce contractile fatigue of the diaphragm. To determine the reproducibility of BAMPS, TwPdi was measured before and after a nonfatiguing task in 10 of the subjects.
Results: TwPdi fell significantly after the hyperpneic task with all three stimulation techniques, and the amount by which TwPdi fell after hyperpnea was not significantly different for the different stimulation techniques. The percentage fall in TwPdi after hyperpnea was significantly correlated between stimulation techniques (CMS vs BAMPS, r = 0.72; TES vs BAMPS, r = 0.84; and TES vs CMS, r = 0.67). The mean (± SE) within-subject, between-trial coefficient of variation for TwPdi during BAMPS was 5.1 ± 0.1%.
Conclusion: BAMPS is highly reproducible and at least as good at detecting diaphragmatic fatigue as the other stimulation techniques.
Key Words: diaphragm muscle fatigue phrenic nerve respiratory muscles transcutaneous nerve stimulation
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Phrenic Nerve Stimulation
The phrenic nerves were stimulated by the following three
different techniques: TES, CMS, and BAMPS. Gastric pressure (Pga),
esophageal pressure (Pes), and transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi) were
measured with two balloon catheters using standard techniques, as
previously described.5
TES:
TES was performed with a pair of surface, bipolar,
stimulating electrodes (model 13L36; Dantec; Allendale, NJ) that had
felt tips and were 6 mm in diameter. The technical details of this
procedure have been described previously.5
6
M waves were
recorded with surface electrodes placed in the seventh and eighth
intercostal spaces, 2 to 3 cm from the costal margin. The
electromyogram signals were amplified and band pass-filtered (band
width, 20 Hz to 2 KHz). To ensure that the stimulus intensity remained
supramaximal, the current was increased by an additional 20 to 50%
during all experimental studies.
Because lung volume can affect twitch amplitude, all twitches were performed at the same end-expiratory lung volume (ie, functional residual capacity), as inferred from the end-expiratory Pes. Before nerve stimulation, the mouthpiece was occluded via a mouth shutter (model 4200C; Hans Rudolph; Kansas City, MO) to prevent any change in volume during nerve stimulation.
M waves from each hemidiaphragm were digitized and stored on a disk using computer software (Windaq; Dataq Instruments, Inc; Akron, OH). The peak-to-trough amplitude (ie, the M-wave height) was measured from the computer tracing. Individual twitches were rejected from analysis if any of the following conditions occurred: (1) a > 20% decrease in M-wave amplitude (right or left) compared with the M-wave amplitude obtained during the initial control period; (2) a failure to initiate the twitch near functional residual capacity, as determined by the end-expiratory Pes; (3) an inability to analyze the M wave because of the superimposition of the ECG; (4) esophageal peristalsis during or just before the initiation of the twitch; and (5) a lack of diaphragmatic relaxation, as demonstrated by diaphragmatic electromyogram activity and/or a Pga in excess of baseline values before twitch onset.5 6
CMS:
CMS was performed with a commercial magnetic stimulator
(Magstim 200; Magstim Co Ltd; Whitland, Dyfed, Wales, UK)
using a circular 90-mm coil. To stimulate the phrenic nerve roots, the
neck was flexed and the coil was placed over the C7 spinous
process. The coil then was moved up and down the midline between C5 and
C7 positions, and the position where the largest Pdi response was
elicited was marked. All subsequent twitches were obtained from this
coil position.
BAMPS:
BAMPS was performed using two 45-mm figure-of-eight
coils, each of which was connected to a magnetic stimulator (Magstim
200; Magstim Co, Ltd).4
The two magnetic stimulators were
connected to allow simultaneous stimulation of the phrenic nerves on
each side. The coils were placed at the posterior border of the
sternomastoid muscle at the level of the cricoid cartilage. When the
optimal position of the coil was located, the position was marked and
used for all subsequent twitches.
Experimental Protocol
For magnetic stimulation, all twitches were performed at 100%
power output of the stimulator. A series of eight twitches with each
stimulation technique were obtained before and 10, 30, and 60 min after
the same hyperpneic run. The order in which the three stimulation
techniques were performed was randomly allocated. On a separate
occasion, five twitches were obtained at 60%, 70%, 80%, 85%, 90%,
95%, and 100% power output (n = 10) to determine whether BAMPS
maximally stimulated the phrenic nerves. A plateau in the TwPdi with
increasing power output would indicate that the phrenic nerves were
maximally stimulated. During magnetic stimulation, the M wave often was
obscured by a large stimulus artifact. For this reason, we did not use
M-wave amplitude as a criterion for twitch acceptance during magnetic
stimulation. Otherwise, we used the same criteria to determine twitch
acceptability as were employed during TES.
Hyperpneic Run
The subjects maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) was measured
over 12 s using standard pulmonary function equipment (P.K.
Morgan; Chatham, Kent, UK). At least three MVV maneuvers were
performed, and the highest MVV was chosen for analysis. After a 3-min
acclimatization period to the breathing circuit, subjects were asked to
breathe at 60% of their MVV until task failure, which was defined as
the inability to maintain minute ventilation
(
E) of > 55% of the MVV. When the
subjects
E slipped below the target, they were
verbally exhorted to increase their ventilation. When subjects were
unable to maintain a
E OF > 55% of the MVV
despite verbal encouragement, task failure was said to have occurred
and the run was terminated.
During hyperpnea, subjects breathed through a two-way nonrebreathing valve of low resistance and dead space (model 2700; Hans Rudolph). Inspiratory flow was measured with a pneumotachograph (model 3813; Hans Rudolph) and a ± 5 cm H2O differential pressure transducer (MP 45; Validyne Corp). Tidal volume was obtained by integration of the flow signal. The inspiratory limb of the breathing circuit was connected to a 200-L bag filled with an air-O2-CO2 mixture. Expired CO2 was sampled at the mouthpiece and was analyzed by an infrared CO2 analyzer (Medical Gas Analyzer LB-2; Beckman Coulter; Fullerton, CA). The relative proportions of air and O2-CO2 gas mixture added to the bag were adjusted throughout the hyperpneic run to keep the end-tidal CO2 level between 4.0% and 5.5%.
To determine whether anterolateral magnetic stimulation was
reproducible over time, control runs were performed in 10 subjects.
Subjects breathed at a target ventilation of 25 L/min for 10 min. The
average (± SE)
E during the control runs
represented 13.8 ± 0.7% of the subjects MVV, a percentage that is
clearly nonfatiguing.
E was measured continuously throughout the
hyperpneic run. Breathing pattern and respiratory pressures were
measured for 10 consecutive breaths at the middle and during the
penultimate minute of the run.
All signals were digitized and stored on disk using computer software (Windaq; Dataq Instruments).
Data Analysis
For each individual trial, a fall in TwPdi after hyperpnea of
15% was considered to be indicative of diaphragmatic fatigue. Changes
in TwPdi after hyperpnea were analyzed by repeated-measures analysis of
variance (ANOVA) and paired t test with Bonferroni
correction. Simple linear regression was used to compare the values for
TwPdi given by the different stimulation techniques. The data are
expressed as the mean ± SE.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
The percentage fall in TwPdi after hyperpnea (from the baseline value) was significantly correlated among the three stimulation techniques (Fig 3 ). The r values were 0.72 for CMS and BAMPS, 0.84 for TES and BAMPS, and 0.67 for TES and CMS.
|
Reproducibility and Validity of TwPdi With BAMPS
The TwPdi was not significantly different from the baseline value
at any time after the control hyperpneic run (Fig 4
). The within-subject, between-trial coefficient of variation for TwPdi
during BAMPS was 5.1 ± 1.0%. The coefficient of variation for its
component parts was 7.1 ± 1.5% for TwPes and 8.2 ± 0.9% for
TwPga.
|
|
Breathing Pattern During Hyperpnea
Endurance time averaged 12.3 ± 2.0 min. The
E averaged 97.7 ± 4.1 L/min, which represented
58.6 ± 1.6% of the 12-s MVV. The respiratory rate was 71.4 ± 5.7
breaths/min, while the peak inspiratory flow was
4.1 ± 0.2 L/min. The mean inspiratory Pes and Pdi were
30.8 ± 1.4 and 15.9 ± 1.4 cm H2O,
respectively. The respiratory duty cycle was 0.55 ± 0.01.
Pressure-time products (PTPs) from the esophageal and the diaphragmatic
pressure curves were calculated as mean pressure x inspiratory
time x respiratory frequency and equaled 1,011 ± 67 and
511 ± 40 cm H2O/s/min,
respectively. A tension-time index from the Pes curve was
calculated as the mean inspiratory Pes/maximal Pes x respiratory
duty cycle and equaled 0.15 ± 0.01 during hyperpnea. Abdominal
muscle contraction during expiration occurred in all subjects.
Expiratory Pga swings averaged 28.4 ± 3.6 cm
H2O. The
E during the control
hyperpnea runs averaged 24.7 ± 1.0 L/min. The esophageal
PTP and the diaphragmatic PTP were 201 ± 12 and 230 ± 28 cm
H2O/s/min, respectively.
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
BAMPS
Technique:
BAMPS proved to be quite simple to use, and, once
the stimulating coils were placed in the suggested
position,4
minimal to no repositioning of the coils was
required. In contrast, TES can be quite difficult to perform,
particularly in obese individuals. A slight movement of the patients
neck can completely alter the orientation of the stimulating
electrodes, which then require extensive repositioning. In this study,
we had three subjects, all of whom were obese and in whom we had
considerable difficulty finding the optimal position for TES. In these
subjects, although it appeared that the compound motor action potential
plateaued with increasing stimulus current, TwPdi was low, ranging from
13.2 to 14.4 cm H2O. TwPdi was markedly larger during CMS
(32.5 ± 2.0 cm H2O) and BAMPS (31.1 ± 1.2 cm
H2O), clearly demonstrating that TwPdi during TES was
submaximal in these subjects. No such difficulties were encountered
during BAMPS.
A plateau in TwPdi during BAMPS occurred at a power output from the
magnetic stimulator of
85%. In contrast, during CMS TwPdi does not
appear to plateau until approximately 95% of power
output.5
7
Thus, it is much easier to document that
stimulation is maximal with BAMPS.
During CMS, flexion of the neck is required to obtain maximal stimulation. When this is not possible, BAMPS would be a suitable alternative. In patients with fatty deposits at the back of their neck, as in patients with Cushings syndrome, the results of CMS are unlikely to be maximal and BAMPS would be a better choice. Patients with severe COPD are sometimes placed on long-term steroid therapy that, obviously, can produce Cushingoid features.
In our study, we had one obese female subject with a prominent fatty deposit at the back of her neck. Although the TwPdi during CMS was within the normal range, it was considerably lower than that obtained during TES and BAMPS. Thus, patient anatomy should be considered when determining the optimal method to obtain the TwPdi.
The TwPdi obtained during CMS is larger than that obtained during TES.5 7 8 CMS provides a more diffuse stimulus that activates the chest wall muscles, stiffening the upper rib cage, which improves the transformation of diaphragmatic force into negative pleural pressure. The TwPdi obtained during BAMPS was also significantly higher than that obtained during TES but was not significantly different from that obtained during CMS. During CMS, the TwPes/TwPga ratio is often significantly higher than that during TES,4 8 as was observed in this study. The TwPes/TwPga ratio during BAMPS was intermediate between the values obtained during TES and CMS, and was not significantly different from either value. BAMPS may more closely resemble TES than does CMS.
TwPdi during BAMPS was highly reproducible (5.1 ± 1.0%; Fig 4 ), with a within-subject, between-trial coefficient of variation that was similar to that observed in our laboratory for TES and CMS.5 6 7
Ability to Detect Fatigue:
The TwPdi fell significantly
following voluntary hyperpnea to task failure with all three
stimulation techniques (Fig 1)
. For the group as a whole, the
percentage fall in TwPdi after hyperpnea was not significantly
different for the three stimulation techniques (Fig 2)
. In individual
subjects, based on a threshold of a 15% fall in TwPdi after hyperpnea
(from the baseline value) to distinguish fatiguers from nonfatiguers,
congruent results were obtained in 10 of 12 subjects. Thus, it appears
that all three techniques are acceptable methods to detect
diaphragmatic fatigue. When the percentage fall in TwPdi
after hyperpnea was compared for the three techniques, significant
correlations were obtained. BAMPS was significantly correlated with
TES and CMS, and TES and CMS were also significantly correlated.
The degree of fatigue elicited by voluntary hyperpnea was relatively modest as, on average, TwPdi fell by 21% after hyperpnea. The range for the between-trial, within-subject coefficient of variation is 5 to 8% for the different stimulation techniques. For each correlation, we compared changes in two signals with significant noise compared with the magnitude of the expected change. Thus, it is not surprising that the correlations are not extremely tight. If the degree of fatigue elicited by hyperpnea had been greater (ie, improving the signal-to-noise ratio), the correlations between the stimulation techniques might have been better.
We have previously shown that during voluntary hyperpnea to task failure, the pattern of respiratory muscle recruitment can vary between subjects.5 While all inspiratory and expiratory muscles are recruited, the amount of rib cage and expiratory muscle recruitment (compared to diaphragmatic recruitment) varies among subjects. Depending on respiratory muscle recruitment patterns during hyperpnea, at task failure subjects may have predominant diaphragmatic fatigue, predominant rib cage fatigue, global inspiratory muscle fatigue, or no inspiratory muscle fatigue (in patients with no inspiratory muscle fatigue, task failure must be due to either expiratory muscle fatigue9 or central fatigue).10 Similowski and colleagues3 have shown that by examining changes in TwPes, TwPga, and the TwPes/TwPga ratio, CMS can be used to detect both rib cage and diaphragmatic fatigue. As predicted by Similowski and colleagues3 for the patients with predominant diaphragmatic fatigue, TwPdi fell after hyperpnea to a greater extent during TES than during CMS, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. In the patients with predominant rib cage fatigue, TwPdi fell after hyperpnea to a greater extent during CMS than during TES, although again the difference did not reach statistical significance. With BAMPS, in patients with predominant diaphragmatic fatigue, TwPdi fell after hyperpnea to a similar extent as during TES, while in patients with predominant rib cage fatigue, TwPdi fell after hyperpnea to a similar extent as during CMS. It would be worthwhile to repeat the experiments of Similowski and colleagues3 in which isolated rib cage fatigue was produced to better delineate the manner in which rib cage fatigue affects the twitch responses during BAMPS.
In conclusion, BAMPS is an easy and reproducible technique that can effectively detect diaphragmatic fatigue in human subjects.
| Footnotes |
|---|
E = minute
ventilation Received for publication March 30, 2001. Accepted for publication July 23, 2001.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
I. Vogiatzis, O. Georgiadou, I. Giannopoulou, M. Koskolou, S. Zakynthinos, K. Kostikas, E. Kosmas, H. Wagner, E. Peraki, A. Koutsoukou, et al. Effects of exercise-induced arterial hypoxaemia and work rate on diaphragmatic fatigue in highly trained endurance athletes J. Physiol., April 15, 2006; 572(2): 539 - 549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W D-C Man, M G G Soliman, D Nikoletou, M L Harris, G F Rafferty, N Mustfa, M I Polkey, and J Moxham Non-volitional assessment of skeletal muscle strength in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Thorax, August 1, 2003; 58(8): 665 - 669. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |