scholarly journals Phrenic nerve stimulation prevents diaphragm atrophy in patients with respiratory failure on mechanical ventilation

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Soták ◽  
Karel Roubík ◽  
Tomáš Henlín ◽  
Tomáš Tyll

Abstract Background Diaphragm atrophy and dysfunction is a major problem among critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation. Ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction is thought to play a major role, resulting in a failure of weaning. Stimulation of the phrenic nerves and resulting diaphragm contraction could potentially prevent or treat this atrophy. The subject of this study is to determine the effectiveness of diaphragm stimulation in preventing atrophy by measuring changes in its thickness. Methods A total of 12 patients in the intervention group and 10 patients in the control group were enrolled. Diaphragm thickness was measured by ultrasound in both groups at the beginning of study enrollment (hour 0), after 24 hours, and at study completion (hour 48). The obtained data were then statistically analyzed and both groups were compared. Results The results showed that the baseline diaphragm thickness in the interventional group was (1.98 ± 0.52) mm and after 48 hours of phrenic nerve stimulation increased to (2.20 ± 0.45) mm (p=0.001). The baseline diaphragm thickness of (2.00 ± 0.33) mm decreased in the control group after 48 hours of mechanical ventilation to (1.72 ± 0.20) mm (p<0.001). Conclusions Our study demonstrates that induced contraction of the diaphragm by pacing the phrenic nerve not only reduces the rate of its atrophy during mechanical ventilation but also leads to an increase in its thickness – the main determinant of the muscle strength required for spontaneous ventilation and successful ventilator weaning. Trial registration: The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (18/06/2018, NCT03559933, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03559933).

2014 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
pp. 766a
Author(s):  
Bumsoo Ahn ◽  
Daniel Martin ◽  
Tomas Martin ◽  
Tom Beaver ◽  
Barbara Smith ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. e362-e370 ◽  
Author(s):  
James O’Rourke ◽  
Michal Soták ◽  
Gerard F. Curley ◽  
Aoife Doolan ◽  
Tomáš Henlín ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 183 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Stanley ◽  
J. Broderick ◽  
K. Synnott ◽  
J. McCarthy ◽  
E. Smith ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 958-962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meirong Yang ◽  
Haitao Wang ◽  
Guangwei Han ◽  
Lianhua Chen ◽  
Lina Huang ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 829-831 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark C. Spitz ◽  
Ken R. Winston ◽  
Edward H. Maa ◽  
Steven G. Ojemann

Discontinuity in the silicone insulation over an electrode of a left vagus nerve stimulator (VNS) allowed the aberrant leak of current to the phrenic nerve and other structures. This resulted in ipsilateral diaphragmatic dysfunction, inability to vocalize, and severe radiating pain into the jaw and upper incisor for the duration of each stimulation. The device was explanted and a new device was implanted. All stimulation-related symptoms ceased immediately. A similar discontinuity in the silicone insulation is the likely explanation for several prior reports of poorly understood pains and phrenic nerve stimulation in patients with VNSs. The findings and analysis of this case establish a rationale for consideration of replacement of the VNS lead in all similarly symptomatic patients.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Quesnel ◽  
Françoise Beuret Blanquart ◽  
Jean Paul Marie ◽  
Eric Verin

Objective. The aim of the present study was to evaluate sniff test, maximal inspiratory pressure, and presence of paradoxical inspiratory diaphragmatic movements and their diagnostic value in patients referred for suspicion of diaphragmatic dysfunction. Methods. Twenty-two patients (8 men and 14 women, 58±13 years) with suspected diaphragmatic dysfunction were included. Pulmonary function test was evaluated by spirometry. Diaphragm dysfunction was diagnosed with unilateral phrenic nerve stimulation. Esophageal pressure was recorded during sniff test and maximal static inspiratory movements. Detection of paradoxical diaphragmatic movement was performed with anteroposterior projection of chest X-ray fluoroscopic video. Results. Phrenic nerve stimulation enabled diagnosis of diaphragmatic paralysis in 15 of the 22 patients. The remaining 7 patients had normal explorations. Lung volumes were significantly lower in patients with diaphragmatic paralysis than in control subjects, as maximal inspiratory pressure. No patient with normal diaphragmatic exploration had paradoxical inspiratory movement. The combined diagnostic value of reduced esophageal pressure during sniff test, reduced esophageal pressure during maximal static inspiratory movements, and presence of paradoxical inspiratory movement had a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 71%. Conclusion. Our results suggest that, in most cases, a combination of sniff test, maximal inspiratory pressure, and paradoxical inspiratory movement could help to diagnose diaphragmatic dysfunction. Nevertheless, phrenic nerve stimulation remains the best test for assessing diaphragmatic dysfunction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document