Literature DB >> 9104856

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

T Similowski1, S Mehiri, A Duguet, V Attali, C Straus, J P Derenne.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9104856     DOI: 10.1152/jappl.1997.82.4.1190

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)        ISSN: 0161-7567


  8 in total

1.  Effect of brachial plexus co-activation on phrenic nerve conduction time.

Authors:  Y M Luo; M I Polkey; R A Lyall; J Moxham
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 9.139

2.  Identification of prolonged phrenic nerve conduction time in the ICU: magnetic versus electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Alexandre Demoule; Capucine Morelot-Panzini; Hélène Prodanovic; Christophe Cracco; Julien Mayaux; Alexandre Duguet; Thomas Similowski
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Reliability of diaphragmatic motor-evoked potentials induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Joseph F Welch; Patrick J Argento; Gordon S Mitchell; Emily J Fox
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2020-10-08

4.  Finding the Location of Axonal Activation by a Miniature Magnetic Coil.

Authors:  Hui Ye
Journal:  Front Comput Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 3.387

5.  Differences between diaphragmatic compound muscle action potentials recorded from over the sternum and lateral chest wall in healthy subjects.

Authors:  Gihan Younis; Noha El Sawy; Rehab Elnemr; Doaa Madkour
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 4.996

6.  Assessment of Diaphragm and External Intercostals Fatigue from Surface EMG using Cervical Magnetic Stimulation.

Authors:  Meng-Yueh Chien; Ying-Tai Wu; Ya-Ju Chang
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2008-03-28       Impact factor: 3.576

7.  Lightning strike: a first case of unilateral diaphragmatic paralysis.

Authors:  Timucin Alar; Yildiz Degirmenci; Handan Isin Ozisik Karaman
Journal:  Clin Pract       Date:  2011-11-02

8.  Respiratory electrophysiologic studies in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Authors:  Yu Wang; Na Liu; Zhecheng Zhang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 1.889

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.