Evaluation of computed tomography in the diagnosis of ultrasound-proven diaphragm dysfunction.
Diaphragm
Musculoskeletal physiological phenomena
Physiology
Respiratory function tests
Respiratory physiological phenomena
Ultrasonography
X-Ray computed tomography
Journal
Respiratory research
ISSN: 1465-993X
Titre abrégé: Respir Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101090633
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Mar 2024
20 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
07
12
2023
accepted:
13
03
2024
medline:
21
3
2024
pubmed:
21
3
2024
entrez:
21
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Computed tomography (CT) is routinely employed on the evaluation of dyspnea, yet limited data exist on its assessment of diaphragmatic muscle. This study aimed to determine the capability of CT in identifying structural changes in the diaphragm among patients with ultrasound-confirmed diaphragmatic dysfunction. Diaphragmatic ultrasounds conducted between 2018 and 2021 at our center in Marseille, France, were retrospectively collected. Diaphragmatic pillars were measured on CT scans at the L1 level and the celiac artery. Additionally, the difference in height between the two diaphragmatic domes in both diaphragmatic dysfunction cases and controls was measured and compared. A total of 65 patients were included, comprising 24 with diaphragmatic paralysis, 13 with diaphragmatic weakness, and 28 controls. In the case group (paralysis and weakness) with left dysfunctions (n = 24), the CT thickness of the pillars at the level of L1 and the celiac artery was significantly thinner compared with controls (2.0 mm vs. 7.4 mm and 1.8 mm vs. 3.1 mm, p < 0.001 respectively). Significantly different values were observed for paralysis (but not weakness) in the right dysfunction subgroup (n = 15) (2.6 mm vs. 7.4 mm and 2.2 mm vs. 3.8 mm, p < 0.001 respectively, for paralysis vs. controls). Regardless of the side of dysfunction, a significant difference in diaphragmatic height was observed between cases and controls (7.70 cm vs. 1.16 cm and 5.51 cm vs. 1.16 cm, p < 0.001 for right and left dysfunctions, respectively). Threshold values determined through ROC curve analyses for height differences between the two diaphragmatic domes, indicative of paralysis or weakness in the right dysfunctions, were 4.44 cm and 3.51 cm, respectively. Similarly for left dysfunctions, the thresholds were 2.70 cm and 2.48 cm, respectively, demonstrating good performance (aera under the curve of 1.00, 1.00, 0.98, and 0.79, respectively). In cases of left diaphragmatic dysfunction, as well as in paralysis associated with right diaphragmatic dysfunction, CT revealed thinner pillars. Additionally, a notable increase in the difference in diaphragmatic height demonstrated a strong potential to identify diaphragmatic dysfunction, with specific threshold values.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38509592
doi: 10.1186/s12931-024-02770-w
pii: 10.1186/s12931-024-02770-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
135Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Ahmed AA. Dysfunction of the diaphragm. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2036–7; author reply 2037. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1204076 .
American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society. ATS/ERS Statement on respiratory muscle testing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:518–624. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.166.4.518 .
doi: 10.1164/rccm.166.4.518
Polkey MI, Duguet A, Luo Y, Hughes PD, Hart N, Hamnegård CH, et al. Anterior magnetic phrenic nerve stimulation: laboratory and clinical evaluation. Intensive Care Med. 2000;26:1065–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001340051319 .
doi: 10.1007/s001340051319
pubmed: 11030162
Sinderby C, Beck J, Spahija J, Weinberg J, Grassino A. Voluntary activation of the human diaphragm in health and disease. J Appl Physiol. 1985;1998(85):2146–58. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1998.85.6.2146 .
doi: 10.1152/jappl.1998.85.6.2146
Boussuges A, Rives S, Finance J, Brégeon F. Assessment of diaphragmatic function by ultrasonography: Current approach and perspectives. World J Clin Cases. 2020;8:2408–24. https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v8.i12.2408 .
doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i12.2408
pubmed: 32607319
pmcid: 7322428
Agostoni E, Rahn H. Abdominal and thoracic pressures at different lung volumes. J Appl Physiol. 1960;15:1087–92. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1960.15.6.1087 .
doi: 10.1152/jappl.1960.15.6.1087
pubmed: 13681667
Santana PV, Cardenas LZ, de Albuquerque ALP, de Carvalho CRR, Caruso P. Diaphragmatic ultrasound: a review of its methodological aspects and clinical uses. J Bras Pneumol. 2020;46:e20200064. https://doi.org/10.36416/1806-3756/e20200064 .
doi: 10.36416/1806-3756/e20200064
pubmed: 33237154
pmcid: 7909996
Laghi FA, Saad M, Shaikh H. Ultrasound and non-ultrasound imaging techniques in the assessment of diaphragmatic dysfunction. BMC Pulm Med. 2021;21:85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-021-01441-6 .
doi: 10.1186/s12890-021-01441-6
pubmed: 33722215
pmcid: 7958108
Panicek DM, Benson CB, Gottlieb RH, Heitzman ER. The diaphragm: anatomic, pathologic, and radiologic considerations. Radiographics. 1988;8:385–425. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.8.3.3289099 .
doi: 10.1148/radiographics.8.3.3289099
pubmed: 3289099
Sukkasem W, Moftah SG, Kicska G, Godwin JD, Pipavath S, Stern E. Crus atrophy: accuracy of computed tomography in diagnosis of diaphragmatic paralysis. J Thorac Imaging. 2017;32:383–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/RTI.0000000000000276 .
doi: 10.1097/RTI.0000000000000276
pubmed: 28549021
Ufuk F, Çakmak P, Sağtaş E, Herek D, Arslan M, Yağcı AB. Diaphragm thickness measurement in computed tomography: intra- and inter-observer agreement. Istanbul Med J. 2019;20:101–6. https://doi.org/10.4274/imj.galenos.2018.65471 .
doi: 10.4274/imj.galenos.2018.65471
Boussuges A, Brégeon F, Blanc P, Gil J-M, Poirette L. Characteristics of the paralysed diaphragm studied by M-mode ultrasonography. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2019;39:143–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12549 .
doi: 10.1111/cpf.12549
pubmed: 30325572
Boussuges A, Rives S, Finance J, Chaumet G, Vallée N, Risso J-J, et al. Ultrasound assessment of diaphragm thickness and thickening: reference values and limits of normality when in a seated position. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:742703. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.742703 .
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.742703
pubmed: 34778304
Boussuges A, Habert P, Chaumet G, Rouibah R, Delorme L, Menard A, et al. Diaphragm dysfunction after severe COVID-19: An ultrasound study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:949281. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.949281 .
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.949281
pubmed: 36091672
Boussuges A, Finance J, Chaumet G, Brégeon F. Diaphragmatic motion recorded by M-mode ultrasonography: limits of normality. ERJ Open Res. 2021;7:00714–2020. https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00714-2020 .
doi: 10.1183/23120541.00714-2020
pubmed: 33778044
pmcid: 7983192
Boussuges A, Chaumet G, Poirette L. Interest of ultrasonographic assessment of diaphragmatic function in cardiac rehabilitation center: a case report. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94:e801. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000000801 .
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000801
pubmed: 25984664
Patel AS, O’Donnell C, Parker MJ, Roberts DH. Diaphragm paralysis definitively diagnosed by ultrasonography and postural dependence of dynamic lung volumes after seven decades of dysfunction. Lung. 2007;185:15–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00408-006-0055-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s00408-006-0055-7
pubmed: 17294337
Lloyd T, Tang Y-M, Benson MD, King S. Diaphragmatic paralysis: the use of M mode ultrasound for diagnosis in adults. Spinal Cord. 2006;44:505–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.sc.3101889 .
doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101889
pubmed: 16331304
Sirasanagandla SR, Nayak SB, Bhat KM, Surendran S, Regunathan D, Kumar N, et al. Duplicated right crus of the diaphragm: a cadaveric case report. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2014;58:39–44.
pubmed: 24587495
pmcid: 3924503
Obuchowski NA. Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology. 2003;229:3–8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2291010898 .
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2291010898
pubmed: 14519861
Katagiri M, Young RN, Platt RS, Kieser TM, Easton PA. Respiratory muscle compensation for unilateral or bilateral hemidiaphragm paralysis in awake canines. J Appl Physiol. 1985;1994(77):1972–82. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1994.77.4.1972 .
doi: 10.1152/jappl.1994.77.4.1972
Houston JG, Fleet M, Cowan MD, McMillan NC. Comparison of ultrasound with fluoroscopy in the assessment of suspected hemidiaphragmatic movement abnormality. Clin Radiol. 1995;50:95–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0009-9260(05)82987-3 .
doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(05)82987-3
pubmed: 7867276
Dubé B-P, Dres M. Diaphragm dysfunction: diagnostic approaches and management strategies. J Clin Med. 2016;5:113. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm5120113 .
doi: 10.3390/jcm5120113
pubmed: 27929389
pmcid: 5184786
Williamson BR, Gouse JC, Rohrer DG, Teates CD. Variation in the thickness of the diaphragmatic crura with respiration. Radiology. 1987;163:683–4. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.163.3.3575714 .
doi: 10.1148/radiology.163.3.3575714
pubmed: 3575714
Dovgan DJ, Lenchik L, Kaye AD. Computed tomographic evaluation of maximal diaphragmatic crural thickness. Conn Med. 1994;58:203–6.
pubmed: 8045119