Diaphragm impairment in patients admitted for severe COVID-19
Among patients affected by the virus COVID-19, physicians have observed ventilation disorders. It is relevant to assess neurological involvement, including the role of diaphragmatic function. Its possible impairment could be related to the systemic inflammatory response and disease progression that...
| Autores: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Autónoma de Madrid |
| Repositorio: | Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAM |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.uam.es:10486/718254 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10486/718254 https://dx.doi.org/10.4081/ejtm.2022.10460 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Coronavirus diaphragm electromyography phrenic nerve ultrasound Medicina |
| Sumario: | Among patients affected by the virus COVID-19, physicians have observed ventilation disorders. It is relevant to assess neurological involvement, including the role of diaphragmatic function. Its possible impairment could be related to the systemic inflammatory response and disease progression that both typify COVID-19 infection. We distinguished two groups (severe group (SG) and mild group (MG)) according to the severity of respiratory symptomatology. We performed neurophysiological and sonography studies to evaluate the diaphragmatic function. Regarding the sonography variables, we identified statistically significant differences in the right mean diaphragmatic thickness along with the expiration, showing 1.56 mm (SEM: 0.11) in the SG vs 1.92 mm (SEM: 0.19) in the MG (p = 0.042). The contractibility of both hemidiaphragms was 15% lower in the severe group, though this difference is not statistically significant. In our examination of the neurophysiological variables, in the amplitude responses, we observed a greater difference between responses from both phrenic nerves as follows: the raw differences in amplitude were 0.40 μV (SEM: 0.14) in the SG vs 0.35 μV (SEM: 0.19) in the MG and the percentage difference was 25.92% (SEM: 7.22) in the SG vs 16.28% (SEM: 4.38%) in the MG. Although diaphragmatic dysfunction is difficult to detect, our combined functional and morphological approach with phrenic electroneurograms and chest ultrasounds could improve diagnostic sensitivity. We suggest that diaphragmatic dysfunction could play a relevant role in respiratory disturbance in hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19 |
|---|