These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of cervical magnetic stimulation and bilateral percutaneous electrical stimulation of the phrenic nerves in normal subjects.
    Author: Wragg S, Aquilina R, Moran J, Ridding M, Hamnegard C, Fearn T, Green M, Moxham J.
    Journal: Eur Respir J; 1994 Oct; 7(10):1788-92. PubMed ID: 7828686.
    Abstract:
    Cervical magnetic stimulation is a new technique for stimulating the phrenic nerves, and may offer an alternative to percutaneous electrical stimulation for assessing diaphragmatic strength in normal subjects and patients in whom electrical stimulation is technically difficult or poorly tolerated. We compared cervical magnetic stimulation with conventional supramaximal bilateral percutaneous electrical stimulation in nine normal subjects. We measured oesophageal pressure (Poes), gastric pressure (Pgas) and transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi). The maximal relaxation rate (MRR) was also measured. The mean magnetic twitch Pdi was 36.5 cmH2O (range 27-48 cmH2O), significantly larger than electrical twitch Pdi, mean 29.7 cmH2O (range 22-40 cmH2O). The difference in twitch Pdi was explained entirely by twitch Poes, and it is possible that the magnetic technique stimulates some of the nerves to the upper chest wall muscles as well as the phrenic nerves. We compared bilateral, rectified, integrated, diaphragm surface electromyographic (EMG) responses in three subjects and found results within 10% in each subject, indicating similar diaphragmatic activation. The within occasion coefficient of variation, i.e. same subject/same session, was 6.7% both for magnetic and electrical twitch Pdi. The between occasion coefficient of variation, i.e. same subject/different days, was 6.6% for magnetic stimulation and 8.8% for electrical. There was no difference between relaxation rates measured with either technique. We conclude that magnetic stimulation is a reproducible and acceptable technique for stimulating the phrenic nerves, and that it provides a potentially useful alternative to conventional electrical stimulation as a nonvolitional test of diaphragm strength.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]