Abstract
Rationale Rapid magnetic stimulation (RMS) of the phrenic nerves may serve to attenuate diaphragm atrophy during mechanical ventilation. With different coil shapes and stimulation location, inspiratory responses and side-effects may differ.
Objective To compare the inspiratory and sensory responses of three different RMS-coils either used bilaterally on the neck or on the chest, and to determine if ventilation over 10min can be achieved without muscle fatigue and coils overheating.
Methods Healthy participants underwent bilateral anterior 1-s RMS on the neck (RMSBAMPS) (n=14) with three different pairs of magnetic coils (parabolic, D-shape, butterfly) at 15, 20, 25 and 30Hz stimulator-frequency and 20% stimulator-output with +10% increments. The D-shape coil with individual optimal stimulation settings was then used to ventilate participants (n=11) for up to 10min. Anterior RMS on the chest (RMSaMS) (n=8) was conducted on an optional visit. Airflow was assessed via pneumotach and transdiaphragmatic pressure via esophageal and gastric balloon catheters. Perception of air hunger, pain, discomfort and paresthesia were measured with a numerical scale.
Main results Inspiration was induced via RMSBAMPS in 86% of participants with all coils and via RMSaMS in only one participant with the parabolic coil. All coils produced similar inspiratory and sensory responses during RMSBAMPS with the butterfly coil needing higher stimulator-output, which resulted in significantly larger discomfort ratings at maximal inspiratory responses. Ten of 11 participants achieved 10min of ventilation without decreases in minute ventilation (15.7±4.6L/min).
Conclusions RMSBAMPS was more effective than RMSaMS, and could temporarily ventilate humans seemingly without development of muscular fatigue.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT04176744
Funding Statement
This study was funded by innosuisse (Project-No. 34221.1 IP-LS)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Cantonal Ethics Committee of Zurich gave ethical approval for this work (Project ID 2019-01990).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Single abbreviation better defined within the manuscript for clarity. Acknowledgements revised.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
