Does it make difference to measure diaphragm function with M mode (MM) or B mode (BM)?

Creative Commons License

Kalin B. S., GÜRSEL G.

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MONITORING AND COMPUTING, cilt.34, sa.6, ss.1247-1257, 2020 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 34 Sayı: 6
  • Basım Tarihi: 2020
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1007/s10877-019-00432-7
  • Dergi Adı: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MONITORING AND COMPUTING
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Aerospace Database, CINAHL, Communication Abstracts, Compendex, EMBASE, INSPEC, MEDLINE, Metadex, Civil Engineering Abstracts
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1247-1257
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Diaphragm ultrasound, Point of care ultrasound (POCUS), Intensive care unit (ICU), Respiratory failure, Mechanical ventilation, MECHANICAL VENTILATION, ULTRASOUND EVALUATION, ULTRASONOGRAPHY, DYSFUNCTION, THICKNESS, EXTUBATION, IMPACT, REPRODUCIBILITY, EVOLUTION, EXCURSION
  • Gazi Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Diaphragm dysfunction occurs in mechanically ventilated subjects. Recent literature suggests that diaphragm thickening fraction (DTF) measured by ultrasound can be useful to predict weaning outcome. However, there is no standardized approach in the measurement of diaphragm thickness (DT) and limited data exists comparing different measurement techniques of diaphragm thickness (M mode-MM or B mode-BM). The goal of this study was to compare MM with BM in the measurements of DT and excursion in the ICU subjects. DT measurements were obtained from the right diaphragm during tidal and maximal inspiratory breathing. Three measurements of the DT were taken both in MM and BM and their mean values were calculated. DT was measured during inspiration and expiration and DTF was calculated. Excursion of diaphragm was also measured with MM and BM during tidal and maximal inspiratory breathing. Bias and agreement between the two measurement methods were evaluated with Bland and Altman test. Sixty-two subjects were enrolled in the study. While 25 (40%) subjects were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, 14 (23%) subjects ventilated noninvasively. There were no significant difference between the measurement results of MM and BM. BM and MM tidal diaphragm measurements during the inspiratory (0.3 +/- 0.08 and 0.31 +/- 0.08 cm; P = 0.022), expiratory (0.24 +/- 0.07 and 0.24 +/- 0.07 cm; P = 0.315) phases and tidal DTF were (27 +/- 16 and 31 +/- 14%, P = 0.089) respectively. Results of our study suggests that except tidal inspiratory diaphragm thickness, all thickness and excursion measurements with MM and BM are very compatible with each other. Further studies are necessarry to confirm our results and to standardize the measurements of diaphragm.