Vivien Reynaud1,2, Hélène Prigent2, Aurélien Mulliez3, Marie-Christine Durand2, Frédéric Lofaso2. 1. Centre Médical Germaine Revel, Chabanière, France. 2. Service de Physiologie et Explorations Fonctionnelles, GH Paris Ile de France Ouest - Site Raymond Poincaré - APHP, Garches, France. 3. Direction recherche clinique et Innovation, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unilateral diaphragmatic paralysis (UDP) has major clinical and etiological implications and, therefore, is important to diagnose. Lung function tests and invasive transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi) measurements are widely used to this end but, contrary to phrenic nerve conduction study (NCS), they require volitional maneuvers and/or may be poorly tolerated by patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of Pdi and phrenic NCS for UDP. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 28 patients with suspected UDP. The diagnosis established during a multidisciplinary meeting was the reference standard. RESULTS: Phrenic NCS correlated well with Pdi (r = 0.82, P < .005), and the two tests showed good agreement (κ = 0.82, P < .005). Phrenic NCS and Pdi measurements both had 95% sensitivity, 87.5% specificity, 95% positive predictive, and 87.5% negative predictive values. CONCLUSIONS: Both tests were highly sensitive and specific. Phrenic NCS measurement is a simple, reproducible, noninvasive method whose results correlate well with Pdi and provide insight into the UDP mechanism. In the most difficult cases, combining lung function tests, respiratory muscle assessments, and phrenic NCS can help to establish the diagnosis.
BACKGROUND: Unilateral diaphragmatic paralysis (UDP) has major clinical and etiological implications and, therefore, is important to diagnose. Lung function tests and invasive transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi) measurements are widely used to this end but, contrary to phrenic nerve conduction study (NCS), they require volitional maneuvers and/or may be poorly tolerated by patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of Pdi and phrenic NCS for UDP. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 28 patients with suspected UDP. The diagnosis established during a multidisciplinary meeting was the reference standard. RESULTS: Phrenic NCS correlated well with Pdi (r = 0.82, P < .005), and the two tests showed good agreement (κ = 0.82, P < .005). Phrenic NCS and Pdi measurements both had 95% sensitivity, 87.5% specificity, 95% positive predictive, and 87.5% negative predictive values. CONCLUSIONS: Both tests were highly sensitive and specific. Phrenic NCS measurement is a simple, reproducible, noninvasive method whose results correlate well with Pdi and provide insight into the UDP mechanism. In the most difficult cases, combining lung function tests, respiratory muscle assessments, and phrenic NCS can help to establish the diagnosis.