BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: We determined the feasibility of stimulating the major muscles of respiration with different types of electrodes. Intramuscular hook electrodes, model microstimulators (M-Micro) developed in our laboratory, and commercial radiofrequency microstimulators (RFM) (Alfred Mann Foundation, Valencia, CA), were employed in this investigation. METHODS: In 8 anesthetized dogs, M-Micro were placed bilaterally on the diaphragm and in the abdominal muscles, and hook electrodes were placed in the 3rd and 5th intercostal regions adjacent to the intercostal nerves known to support inspiration. In 3 of the 8 animals, RFMs (Alfred Mann Foundation) in addition to the M-Micros were sutured to each hemidiaphragm at the same optimal site for phrenic nerve stimulation. During a hyperventilation-induced apnea, 2-second stimulations were applied to the diaphragm and with various combinations of diaphragm plus supporting muscles, both thoracic and abdominal. RESULTS: Diaphragm stimulation alone provided tidal volumes adequate for basal alveolar ventilation. However, implantation of the RFM required greater contact with the muscle. Stimulating other respiratory muscles along with the diaphragm further increased tidal volumes. The hook electrodes, M-Micro, and RFM performed equally well. CONCLUSIONS: In the acute dog model, M-Micro and hook electrodes can provide an implant system for the maintenance of ventilation. Support of the intercostal and abdominal muscles has the potential to reduce the contraction requirements of the diaphragm with decreased likelihood of diaphragm fatigue and hypoventilation. Whether the electrodes under investigation could provide an implant system for long-term ventilation needs to be determined.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: We determined the feasibility of stimulating the major muscles of respiration with different types of electrodes. Intramuscular hook electrodes, model microstimulators (M-Micro) developed in our laboratory, and commercial radiofrequency microstimulators (RFM) (Alfred Mann Foundation, Valencia, CA), were employed in this investigation. METHODS: In 8 anesthetized dogs, M-Micro were placed bilaterally on the diaphragm and in the abdominal muscles, and hook electrodes were placed in the 3rd and 5th intercostal regions adjacent to the intercostal nerves known to support inspiration. In 3 of the 8 animals, RFMs (Alfred Mann Foundation) in addition to the M-Micros were sutured to each hemidiaphragm at the same optimal site for phrenic nerve stimulation. During a hyperventilation-induced apnea, 2-second stimulations were applied to the diaphragm and with various combinations of diaphragm plus supporting muscles, both thoracic and abdominal. RESULTS: Diaphragm stimulation alone provided tidal volumes adequate for basal alveolar ventilation. However, implantation of the RFM required greater contact with the muscle. Stimulating other respiratory muscles along with the diaphragm further increased tidal volumes. The hook electrodes, M-Micro, and RFM performed equally well. CONCLUSIONS: In the acute dog model, M-Micro and hook electrodes can provide an implant system for the maintenance of ventilation. Support of the intercostal and abdominal muscles has the potential to reduce the contraction requirements of the diaphragm with decreased likelihood of diaphragm fatigue and hypoventilation. Whether the electrodes under investigation could provide an implant system for long-term ventilation needs to be determined.
Authors: Anthony F DiMarco; Raymond P Onders; Anthony Ignagni; Krzysztof E Kowalski; J Thomas Mortimer Journal: Chest Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: James S Walter; Joseph Posluszny; Raymond Dieter; Robert S Dieter; Scott Sayers; Kiratipath Iamsakul; Christine Staunton; Donald Thomas; Mark Rabbat; Sanjay Singh Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 1.985