Verin Eric, Straus Christian, Demoule Alexandre, Mialon Philippe, Derenne Jean-Philippe, Similowski Thomas
UPRES EA 2397, Université Pierre et Marie Curie Paris VI, 75013 Paris, France.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2002 Mar;92(3):967-74. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00652.2001.
Phrenic nerve stimulation, electrical (ES) or from cervical magnetic stimulation (CMS), allows one to assess the diaphragm contractile properties and the conduction time of the phrenic nerve (PNCT) through recording of an electromyographic response, traditionally by using surface electrodes. Because of the coactivation of extradiaphragmatic muscles, signal contamination can jeopardize the determination of surface PNCTs. To address this, we compared PNCTs with ES and CMS from surface and needle diaphragm electrodes in five subjects (10 phrenic nerves). At a modified recording site, lower and more anterior than usual (lowest accessible intercostal space, costochondral junction) with electrodes 2 cm apart, surface and needle PNCTs were similar (CMS: 6.0 +/- 0.25 ms surface vs. 6.2 +/- 0.13 ms needle, not significant). Electrodes recording the activity of the most likely sources of signal contamination, i.e., the serratus anterior and pectoralis major, showed distinct responses from that of the diaphragm, their earlier occurrence strongly arguing against contamination. With ES and CMS, apparently uncontaminated signals could be consistently recorded from surface electrodes.
膈神经刺激,包括电刺激(ES)或颈磁刺激(CMS),可通过记录肌电图反应来评估膈肌收缩特性和膈神经传导时间(PNCT),传统上使用表面电极进行记录。由于膈肌外肌肉的共同激活,信号污染可能会影响表面PNCT的测定。为了解决这个问题,我们在五名受试者(10条膈神经)中比较了表面电极和针状膈肌电极进行ES和CMS时的PNCT。在一个比通常更低且更靠前的改良记录部位(最低可触及的肋间隙,肋软骨结合处),电极间距为2厘米,表面和针状PNCT相似(CMS:表面为6.0±0.25毫秒,针状为6.2±0.13毫秒,无显著差异)。记录最可能的信号污染源(即前锯肌和胸大肌)活动的电极显示出与膈肌不同的反应,它们更早出现有力地反驳了污染的存在。使用ES和CMS时,表面电极能够持续记录到明显未受污染的信号。