Comparison of magnetic and electrical phrenic nerve stimulation in assessment of diaphragmatic contractility

Abstract

Unlike the standard electrical approach, cervical magnetic stimulation of the phrenic nerves is less painful and achieves a constant degree of diaphragmatic recruitment, features that should enhance its applicability in a clinical setting. An unexplained phenomenon is the greater transdiaphragmatic twitch pressure (Pditw) with magnetic vs. electrical stimulation. We hypothesized that this greater Pditw is due to coactivation of extradiaphragmatic muscles. Because impedance to rib cage expansion is increased at high lung volumes and efficiency of extradiaphragmatic muscles is less than that of the diaphragm, we reasoned that the difference between electrical Pditw and magnetic Pditw would be less evident at high volumes than at end-expiratory lung volume. In human volunteers, magnetic Pditw and electrical Pditw were 37.7 +/- 1.9 (SE) and 32.3 +/- 2.2 cmH2O, respectively, at end-expiratory lung volume (P < 0.005) and 24.0 +/- 2.9 and 27.2 +/- 2.8 cmH2O, respectively, at one-half inspiratory capacity (not significant); at total lung capacity, magnetic Pditw was less than electrical Pditw (10.6 +/- 0.8 and 16.2 +/- 2.9 cmH2O, respectively; P < 0.05). Magnetic stimulation caused significant extradiaphragmatic muscle depolarization and rib cage expansion, whereas electrical stimulation caused virtually no extradiaphragmatic muscle depolarization and rib cage deflation. Despite these differences, the induction of respiratory muscle fatigue produced reductions in both electrical and magnetic Pditw values (P < 0.01), which were of similar magnitude and closely correlated (r = 0.96). In conclusion, magnetic stimulation recruits both extradiaphragmatic and diaphragmatic muscles, and it is equally as effective as electrical stimulation in detecting diaphragmatic fatigue.