Transesophageal Versus Surface Electromyography of the Diaphragm in Ventilated Subjects ======================================================================================= * Joost LC Lokin * Soray Dulger * Gerie J Glas * Janneke Horn ## Abstract **BACKGROUND:** Detection of diaphragmatic muscle activity during invasive ventilation may provide valuable information about patient-ventilator interactions. Transesophageal electromyography of the diaphragm (![Formula][1]) is used in neurally adjusted ventilatory assist. This technique is invasive and can only be applied with one specific ventilator. Surface electromyography of the diaphragm (![Formula][2]) is noninvasive and can potentially be applied with all types of ventilators. The primary objective of our study was to compare the ability of diaphragm activity detection between ![Formula][3] and ![Formula][4]. **METHODS:** In this single-center pilot study, ![Formula][5] and ![Formula][6] recordings were obtained simultaneously for 15 min in adult subjects in the ICU who were invasively ventilated. The number of breathing efforts detected by ![Formula][7] and ![Formula][8] were determined. The percentage of detected breathing efforts by ![Formula][9] compared with ![Formula][10] was calculated. Temporal and signal strength relations on optimum recordings of 10 breaths per subject were also compared. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to determine the correlation between ![Formula][11] and ![Formula][12]. Agreement was calculated by using Bland-Altman statistics. **RESULTS:** Fifteen subjects were included. The ![Formula][13] detected 3,675 breathing efforts, of which 3,162 (86.0%) were also detected by ![Formula][14]. A statistically significant temporal correlation (r = 0.95, *P* < .001) was found between ![Formula][15] and ![Formula][16] in stable recordings. The mean difference in the time intervals between both techniques was 10.1 ms, with limits of agreement from –410 to 430 ms. **CONCLUSIONS:** Analysis of our results showed that ![Formula][17] was not reliable for breathing effort detection in subjects who were invasively ventilated compared with ![Formula][18]. In stable recordings, however, ![Formula][19] and ![Formula][20] had excellent temporal correlation and good agreement. With optimization of signal stability, ![Formula][21] may become a useful monitoring tool. * mechanical ventilation * neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) * electromyography of the diaphragm (EAdi) * surface electromyography ## Introduction Patient-ventilator asynchrony frequently occurs during invasive ventilation and is associated with patient discomfort, a prolonged duration of invasive ventilation, and increased hospital and ICU length of stay.1–4 Although adjustments of the ventilator settings and reducing analgosedation can sometimes resolve patient-ventilator asynchrony, detection in clinical practice is difficult.5–8 Patient-ventilator interactions are not assessed continuously, and waveform interpretation can be complex.9 Information about diaphragm muscle activity during invasive ventilation could improve monitoring of patient-ventilator interactions.10 Currently, the electrical activity of the diaphragm (![Formula][22]) can be recorded by transesophageal electromyography (![Formula][23]). This requires insertion of a specialized nasogastric tube (![Formula][24] catheter) with electrodes at the level of the gastroesophageal junction. The ![Formula][25] is used in neurally-adjusted ventilatory assist mode.11 Because ![Formula][26] is a reflection of spontaneous breath initiation, Neurally-adjusted ventilatory assist mode improves synchrony between the patient and the ventilator compared with conventional assisted modes.12,13 Despite the great potential of ![Formula][27], its use in general ICU practice is limited because only one specific type of ventilator supports neurally-adjusted ventilatory assist mode ventilation. Surface electromyography of the diaphragm (![Formula][28]) could overcome this disadvantage. It is easy to apply, noninvasive, and can theoretically be used in combination with all type of ventilators. Over the past decade, surface electromyography of the respiratory muscles has been investigated.14–16 However, this technique has not been compared with ![Formula][29] in adult patients who are invasively ventilated. The primary objective of our study was to investigate the ability of breathing effort detection with ![Formula][30] compared with ![Formula][31] during invasive ventilation. Because this was a pilot study, we were also interested in the best possible performance of ![Formula][32]. As a proof of concept, we determined the temporal relation between ![Formula][33] and ![Formula][34] on optimal recordings. ### Quick Look #### Current Knowledge Patient-ventilator asynchrony is a common problem in invasive ventilation. Information about transesophageal electrical activity of the diaphragm (![Formula][35]) during invasive ventilation can improve interaction between the patient and the ventilator. Surface electromyography of the diaphragm (![Formula][36]) is noninvasive and can potentially be applied with all ventilators. Yet, it has not directly been compared with ![Formula][37] in the clinical ICU setting. #### What This Paper Contributes to Our Knowledge In stable recordings, ![Formula][38] provided accurate information about patient-ventilator interaction. Due to signal disturbances, however, ![Formula][39] is not yet sufficient to perform as a reliable monitoring tool in current ICU practice. ## Methods ### Study Design This prospective observational cohort study was conducted in the ICU of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, location Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The study protocol was approved by the medical ethics committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, location Academic Medical Center (NL5006.018.14). Subjects were included after written informed consent was signed by the legal representative. Adult patients who were invasively ventilated were eligible for inclusion if (1) ventilation was expected for at least 48 h, (2) they were ventilated with a Servo-i ventilator (Maquet, Wayne, New Jersey), (3) on a spontaneous mode of ventilation, and (4) an EAdi catheter was inserted. The exclusion criteria were (suspected) neuromuscular disease or cervical spinal cord injury, known phrenic nerve injury, and contraindication for surface electrode placement (eg, severe skin infections at the electrode site). Because of the pilot character of this study, a sample size calculation was not performed. The ethical committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Center (MEC 10/107 # 10.17.0921) approved this study (registration number NTR4766, 01/09/2014). Detailed written and verbal information about this study was provided to patients' legal representatives. When subjects were mentally recovered after study inclusion, confirmatory consent was asked of the subjects to use the recordings for research purposes. The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. ### Recordings of ![Formula][40] and ![Formula][41] The ![Formula][42] and ![Formula][43] recordings were obtained simultaneously for a period of 15 min. Ventilator settings were not adjusted during the recordings. For ![Formula][44] recordings, 4 disposable electrodes (Covidien, Dublin, Ireland) were placed bilaterally below the lower frontal and dorsal ribs. An additional electrode (ie, ground) was placed on the sternum (see the supplementary materials at [http://www.rcjournal.com](http://www.rcjournal.com)) All the electrodes were connected with shielded cables to a Dipha-16 physiological amplifier (Inbiolab BV, Groningen, Netherlands). The electromyography signals were combined to obtain the electrical activity of the diaphragm (![Formula][45]). Data were wirelessly transmitted to a laptop computer placed at the bedside of the patient. The ![Formula][46] recordings, by using the ![Formula][47] catheter (Maquet, Solna, Sweden), were registered trough wired connection between this laptop computer and the Servo-i ventilator. ![Fig. 1.](http://rc.rcjournal.com/http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/respcare/65/9/1309/F1.medium.gif) [Fig. 1.](http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/65/9/1309/F1) Fig. 1. Automatic peak detection for A: surface electrical activity of the diaphragm [![Formula][48]] and B: transesophageal electrical activity of the diaphragm [![Formula][49]]. ### Data Collection and Processing The first 2 min of each measurement were exempted from analysis to limit signal disturbances. In each subject, the analysis was performed on the 10 min of recording directly after the exempted first 2 min. Peak diaphragm muscle activity of each breathing effort was detected automatically by using a minimum peak height threshold and a minimum peak distance threshold (Fig. 1). For both ![Formula][50] and ![Formula][51], a respiratory peak was detected when the signal strength was at least 80% of the mean signal strength amplitude. Respiratory ![Formula][52] peaks had to be within a range of 1,000 ms around the respiratory peak in the ![Formula][53] signal to be detected as a matching breathing effort. When multiple ![Formula][54] peaks were detected within this range from de ![Formula][55] peak, the closest the sEAdi peak closest to the tEAdi peak was defined as the respiratory ![Formula][56] respiratory peak. The ![Formula][57] signal was processed with an electrocardiogram gating technique as described in previous studies and was further processed with a boxcar averager.17,18 Processing of ![Formula][58] was integrated into the Servo-i ventilator.19 Other documented data were age, sex, and body mass index of the patient; reason for ICU admission; Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale at the moment of assessment; number of days on invasive ventilation at the moment of assessment; Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score; and ventilator mode and parameters (including ![Formula][59], breathing frequency, oxygen saturation, PEEP, peak inspiratory pressure, and tidal volume). ### Data Analysis The number of matching breathing efforts detected by ![Formula][60] and ![Formula][61] was divided by the total number of breathing efforts detected by ![Formula][62]. The temporal relation was investigated on selected stable recordings of 10 successive breathing efforts per subject. The stable recordings were visually selected from the recording. First, we determined the duration of peak-to-peak time intervals between successive breathing efforts (the time between peak amplitudes) in both ![Formula][63] and ![Formula][64] (9 peak-to-peak intervals per patient). Thereafter, the temporal correlation and agreement between both methods were calculated. ### Statistics Non-parametric statistics were used with median (interquartile range [25th–75th percentile]) because of the small population size. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to determine the strength of the relation between ![Formula][65] and ![Formula][66]. Bland-Altman plots were used to determine the agreement between ![Formula][67] and ![Formula][68].20 Values with significance levels of ≤.05 were considered significant. Data analysis was performed with MATLAB R2016a (MathWorks, Natick, Massachusetts). The statistical analyses were performed by using SPSS version 24 (SPSS, Chicago, Illinois). ## Results Between December 2014 and April 2015, we screened all patients in the ICU who were ventilated with a Servo-i. Results of the screening and inclusion process are shown in Figure 2. Fifteen subjects were included (see Table 1 for baseline characteristics), all the subjects tolerated the measurements well. Ventilator settings and respiratory parameters during the measurements are shown in Table 2. ![Fig. 2.](http://rc.rcjournal.com/http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/respcare/65/9/1309/F2.medium.gif) [Fig. 2.](http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/65/9/1309/F2) Fig. 2. Flow chart. View this table: [Table 1.](http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/65/9/1309/T1) Table 1. Baseline Characteristics View this table: [Table 2.](http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/65/9/1309/T2) Table 2. Ventilator Settings and Respiratory Parameters ### Breathing Effort Detection A total of 3,675 breathing efforts were accurately obtained by using ![Formula][69], of which 3,162 (86.0%) were matched by ![Formula][70] detection. There was a great variety in the number of matching breathing efforts on a per-subject level, which ranged from 66.1 to 98.5% (see the supplementary materials at [http://www.rcjournal.com](http://www.rcjournal.com) for detailed per-subject results). ### Temporal Relation Between ![Formula][71] and ![Formula][72] The temporal relation could not be determined in 4 patients due to impaired signal quality of the ![Formula][73]. Breathing effort time intervals for the selected stable recordings showed a statistically significant correlation (r = 0.95, *P* < .001) between ![Formula][74] and ![Formula][75]. The mean difference in the time intervals between ![Formula][76] and ![Formula][77] was 10.1 ms, with limits of agreement from –410 to 430 ms (Fig. 3). ![Fig. 3.](http://rc.rcjournal.com/http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/respcare/65/9/1309/F3.medium.gif) [Fig. 3.](http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/65/9/1309/F3) Fig. 3. A: A scatterplot of peak-to-peak time intervals, showing the correlation between surface electrical activity of the diaphragm (![Formula][78]) and transesophageal electrical activity of the diaphragm (![Formula][79]). B: Bland-Altman plot, showing the temporal agreement between ![Formula][80] and ![Formula][81]. The dashed lines indicate the limits of agreement. ## Discussion This pilot study compared ![Formula][82] with ![Formula][83] in subjects who were invasively ventilated. Only 86.0% of all ![Formula][84] that detected breathing efforts were matched by ![Formula][85] recordings. In stable parts of the recordings, however, ![Formula][86] and ![Formula][87] had excellent temporal correlation. Further visual analysis revealed that the inability to determine breathing efforts with ![Formula][88] was mainly caused by impaired signal quality. Recently, surface and esophageal electromyography were compared in healthy subjects after phrenic stimulation. As with our study, esophageal signal amplitudes were higher than amplitudes of surface electromyography.21 High body mass indices and thus increased electrode-to-diaphragm distance could have influenced the ![Formula][89] signal strengths. Although interindividual variability in signal strengths was high, the ratio of ![Formula][90] to ![Formula][91] remained relatively stable between the successive breathing efforts per subject. Differences in signal strengths between patients might indicate an effect of differences in anatomy and measurement conditions. Because electrodes were placed after palpation, we could not rule out the possibility of variety in the electrode-to-diaphragm distance among subjects. The ![Formula][92] was thereby more susceptible for signal disturbances and noise than ![Formula][93]. Activity of the abdominal muscles near the diaphragm could have interfered with the diaphragmatic activity. This phenomenon, also known as cross-talk, might be a disadvantage of surface electromyography.22 In our study, coughing or subject movements could have interfered with ![Formula][94] measurements. However, visual analysis of stable recordings showed similar ![Formula][95] and ![Formula][96] tidal breathing curves (Fig. 1). This suggested that minimal interference of adjacent muscle activity was present in these parts of the recording. Unfortunately, our study was too small to determine possible external causes of impaired ![Formula][97] signal quality. Although not interfering with the ![Formula][98] recording, the sternocleidomastoid and parasternal muscles also contribute to inspiration. However, the diaphragm is the main inspiratory muscle and, therefore, is a reliable signal for triggering invasive ventilation. Thus we chose to compare only ![Formula][99] with ![Formula][100]. The ![Formula][101] and ![Formula][102] signals were processed differently. The ![Formula][103] signal was processed with the double-subtraction technique and was smoothed with an exponential filter, whereas the ![Formula][104] signal was processed with a root mean square signal.19,23 Therefore, peak amplitudes of ![Formula][105] and ![Formula][106] have a quadratic difference. Studies so far have used different thresholds for analysis of ![Formula][107] breathing effort detection.9,24 Because signal strengths were higher in ![Formula][108], we chose a uniform threshold based on the percentage of maximum peak signals to compare ![Formula][109] with ![Formula][110]. So far, ![Formula][111] has been studied in subjects with COPD without invasive ventilation, neonates on noninvasive respiratory support, and in healthy subjects without invasive ventilation in which ![Formula][112] was compared with ![Formula][113].16,18,21,25,26 As a proof of concept, we were interested in the best possible performance of ![Formula][114] compared with ![Formula][115] during invasive ventilation. Therefore, 10 successive breathing efforts per subject were visually selected on parts of the recordings without signal disturbances. In these parts, we found excellent temporal correlation and good agreement between the matching ![Formula][116] and ![Formula][117] breathing efforts. Recently, Beloncle et al27 showed, in a small study, that ![Formula][118]-based monitoring of subjects during supportive invasive ventilation can improve patient-ventilator interaction. Synchrony between patient and the ventilator during invasive ventilation is pivotal to minimize adverse events, ![Formula][119] provides additional information about patients' efforts during invasive ventilation and thus might function as a noninvasive bedside monitoring tool in the future.28,29 However, because of the many signal instabilities in our recordings, this method is not yet reliable and more research has to be conducted to address external causes of signal noise. ### Limitations This study had some limitations. Most importantly, the small number of subjects precluded us from designating factors that significantly impaired the performance of ![Formula][120] We, therefore, were unable to perform a subgroup analysis. Furthermore, we recorded ![Formula][121] and ![Formula][122] over a short period of time and only once in each patient. Therefore, the reproducibility of ![Formula][123] compared with ![Formula][124] was not assessed. More so, our algorithm for automatic breathing effort detection was not capable of discriminating the stable from the instable recordings. ## Conclusions We found that ![Formula][125] was not reliable for breathing effort detection in adult subjects invasively ventilated because of signal instabilities. However, in stable situations, ![Formula][126] and ![Formula][127] had excellent temporal correlation and good agreement. Although optimization of ![Formula][128] is necessary, these findings indicated that ![Formula][129] has potential as a monitoring tool during invasive ventilation. ## Footnotes * Correspondence: Joost LC Lokin MD, Department of Intensive Care, Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Postbus 22660 1100 DD Amsterdam Zuidoost, the Netherlands. E-mail: j.l.lokin{at}amsterdamumc.nl * The study was performed at the Department of Intensive Care, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. * The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest. * Trialregister.nl study registration NTR4766, 01/09/2014. * Supplementary material related to this paper is available at [http://www.rcjournal.com](http://www.rcjournal.com). * Copyright © 2020 by Daedalus Enterprises ## References 1. 1.Mellott KG, Grap MJ, Munro CL, Sessler CN, Wetzel PA, Nilsestuen JO, Ketchum JM. Patient ventilator asynchrony in critically ill adults: frequency and types. Heart Lung 2014;43(3):231–243. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.hrtlng.2014.02.002&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24794784&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) 2. 2.Thille AW, Rodriguez P, Cabello B, Lellouche F, Brochard L. Patient-ventilator asynchrony during assisted mechanical ventilation. Intensive Care Med 2006;32(10):1515–1522. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-006-0301-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16896854&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000240911500010&link_type=ISI) 3. 3.Chao DC, Scheinhorn DJ, Stearn-Hassenpflug M. Patient ventilator trigger asynchrony in prolonged mechanical ventilation. Chest 1997;112(6):1592–1599. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1378/chest.112.6.1592&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9404759&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1997YK95900026&link_type=ISI) 4. 4.de Wit M, Miller KB, Green DA, Ostman HE, Gennings C, Epstein SK. Ineffective triggering predicts increased duration of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 2009;37(10):2740–2745. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a98a05&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19886000&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000270234700009&link_type=ISI) 5. 5.Thille AW, Cabello B, Galia F, Lyazidi A, Brochard L. Reduction of patient-ventilator asynchrony by reducing tidal volume during pressure-support ventilation. Intensive Care Med 2008;34(8):1477–1486. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-008-1121-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18437356&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000257933700018&link_type=ISI) 6. 6.Epstein SK. Optimizing patient-ventilator synchrony. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2001;22(2):137–152. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1055/s-2001-13828&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16088669&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) 7. 7.de Wit M, Pedram S, Best AM, Epstein SK. Observational study of patient-ventilator asynchrony and relationship to sedation level. J Crit Care 2009;24(1):74–80. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jcrc.2008.08.011&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19272542&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) 8. 8.Vaschetto R, Cammarota G, Colombo D, Longhini F, Grossi F, Giovanniello A, et al. Effects of propofol on patient-ventilator synchrony and interaction during pressure support ventilation and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist. Crit Care Med 2014;42(1):74–82. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/CCM.0b013e31829e53dc&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23982026&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) 9. 9.Colombo D, Cammarota G, Alemani M, Carenzo L, Barra FL, Vaschetto R, et al. Efficacy of ventilator waveforms observation in detecting patient–ventilator asynchrony. Crit Care Med 2011;39(11):2452–2457. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/CCM.0b013e318225753c&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21705886&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) 10. 10.Barwing J, Pedroni C, Olgemöller U, Quintel M, Moerer O. Electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) as a monitoring parameter in difficult weaning from respirator: a pilot study. Crit Care 2013; 17(4):R182. 11. 11.Sinderby C, Navalesi P, Beck J, Skrobik Y, Comtois N, Friberg S, et al. Neural control of mechanical ventilation in respiratory failure. Nat Med 1999;5(12):1433–1436. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/71012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10581089&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000084049700046&link_type=ISI) 12. 12.Piquilloud L, Vignaux L, Bialais E, Roeseler J, Sottiaux T, Laterre PF, et al. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist improves patient-ventilator interaction. Intensive Care Med 2011;37(2):263–271. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-010-2052-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20871978&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000286633500012&link_type=ISI) 13. 13.Yonis H, Crognier L, Conil JM, Serres I, Rouget A, Virtos M, et al. Patient-ventilator synchrony in neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) and pressure support ventilation (PSV): a prospective observational study. BMC Anesthesiol 2015;15:117. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12871-015-0091-z&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26253784&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) 14. 14.Maarsingh EJW, van Eykern LA, Sprikkelman AB, Hoekstra MO, van Aalderen WMC. Respiratory muscle activity measured with a noninvasive EMG technique: technical aspects and reproducibility. J Appl Physiol 2014;88(6):1955–1961. 15. 15.Hutten GJ, Van Eykern LA, Latzin P, Kyburz M, Van Aalderen WM, Frey U. Relative impact of respiratory muscle activity on tidal flow and end expiratory volume in healthy neonates. Pediatr Pulmonol 2008;43(9):882–891. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ppul.20874&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18668686&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000259114300007&link_type=ISI) 16. 16.Kraaijenga JV, Hutten GJ, De Jongh FH, Van Kaam AH. Transcutaneous electromyography of the diaphragm: a cardio-respiratory monitor for preterm infants. Pediatr Pulmonol 2015;50(9):889–895. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ppul.23116&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25327880&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) 17. 17.1. Rolfe P O'Brien M, Van Eykern L, Prechtl H. Monitoring respiratory activity in infants: a non-intrusive diaphragm EMG technique. In: Rolfe P, editor. Non-invasive physiological measurements. London: Academic Press; 1983:131–177. 18. 18.Duiverman ML, van Eykern LA, Vennik PW, Koëter GH, Maarsingh EJW, Wijkstra PJ. Reproducibility and responsiveness of a noninvasive EMG technique of the respiratory muscles in COPD patients and in healthy subjects. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2004;96(5):1723–1729. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1152/japplphysiol.00914.2003&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=14660508&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000220737000019&link_type=ISI) 19. 19.Sinderby CA, Beck JC, Lindstrom LH, Grassino AE. Enhancement of signal quality in esophageal recordings of the diaphragm. J Appl Physiol (1985) 1997;82(4):1370–1377. [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9104877&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1997WT03800044&link_type=ISI) 20. 20.Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;I(8476):307–310. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=2868172&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1986AYW4000013&link_type=ISI) 21. 21.Ackermann KA, Brander L, Tuchscherer D, Schröder R, Jakob SM, Takala J, Z'graggen WJ. Esophageal versus surface recording of diaphragm compound muscle action potential. Muscle Nerve 2015;51(4):598–600. 22. 22.American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society. ATS/ERS Statement on respiratory muscle testing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166(4):518–624. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1164/rccm.166.4.518&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12186831&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) 23. 23.Schmidt M, Kindler F, Gottfried SB, Raux M, Hug F, Similowski T, Demoule A. Dyspnea and surface inspiratory electromyograms in mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med 2013;39(8):1368–1376. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-013-2910-3&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23575612&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000321769100004&link_type=ISI) 24. 24.Sinderby C, Liu S, Colombo D, Camarotta G, Slutsky AS, Navalesi P, Beck J. An automated and standardized neural index to quantify patient-ventilator interaction. Crit Care 2013;17(5):R239. [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24131701&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) 25. 25.Wu W, Guan L, Li X, Lin L, Guo B, Yang Y, et al. Correlation and compatibility between surface respiratory electromyography and transesophageal diaphragmatic electromyography measurements during treadmill exercise in stable patients with COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2017;12:3273–3280. 26. 26.Lin L, Guan L, Wu W, Chen R. Correlation of surface respiratory electromyography with esophageal diaphragm electromyography. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2019;259:45–52. 27. 27.Beloncle F, Piquilloud L, Rittayamai N, Sinderby C, Rozé H, Brochard L. A diaphragmatic electrical activity-based optimization strategy during pressure support ventilation improves synchronization but does not impact work of breathing. Crit Care 2017;21(1):21. 28. 28.Rozé H, Repusseau B, Perrier V, Germain A, Séramondi R, Dewitte A, et al. Neuro-ventilatory efficiency during weaning from mechanical ventilation using neurally adjusted ventilatory assist. Br J Anaesth 2013;111(6):955–960. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bja/aet258&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23959781&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000327436600014&link_type=ISI) 29. 29.Dres M, Schmidt M, Ferre A, Mayaux J, Similowski T, Demoule A. Diaphragm electromyographic activity as a predictor of weaning failure. Intensive Care Med 2012;38(12):2017–2025. [CrossRef](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00134-012-2700-3&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23011532&link_type=MED&atom=%2Frespcare%2F65%2F9%2F1309.atom) [Web of Science](http://rc.rcjournal.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000311025600013&link_type=ISI) [1]: /embed/mml-math-1.gif [2]: /embed/mml-math-2.gif [3]: /embed/mml-math-3.gif [4]: /embed/mml-math-4.gif [5]: /embed/mml-math-5.gif [6]: /embed/mml-math-6.gif [7]: /embed/mml-math-7.gif [8]: /embed/mml-math-8.gif [9]: /embed/mml-math-9.gif [10]: /embed/mml-math-10.gif [11]: /embed/mml-math-11.gif [12]: /embed/mml-math-12.gif [13]: /embed/mml-math-13.gif [14]: /embed/mml-math-14.gif [15]: /embed/mml-math-15.gif [16]: /embed/mml-math-16.gif [17]: /embed/mml-math-17.gif [18]: /embed/mml-math-18.gif [19]: /embed/mml-math-19.gif [20]: /embed/mml-math-20.gif [21]: /embed/mml-math-21.gif [22]: /embed/mml-math-22.gif [23]: /embed/mml-math-23.gif [24]: /embed/mml-math-24.gif [25]: /embed/mml-math-25.gif [26]: /embed/mml-math-26.gif [27]: /embed/mml-math-27.gif [28]: /embed/mml-math-28.gif [29]: /embed/mml-math-29.gif [30]: /embed/mml-math-30.gif [31]: /embed/mml-math-31.gif [32]: /embed/mml-math-32.gif [33]: /embed/mml-math-33.gif [34]: /embed/mml-math-34.gif [35]: /embed/mml-math-35.gif [36]: /embed/mml-math-36.gif [37]: /embed/mml-math-37.gif [38]: /embed/mml-math-38.gif [39]: /embed/mml-math-39.gif [40]: /embed/mml-math-40.gif [41]: /embed/mml-math-41.gif [42]: /embed/mml-math-42.gif [43]: /embed/mml-math-43.gif [44]: /embed/mml-math-44.gif [45]: /embed/mml-math-45.gif [46]: /embed/mml-math-46.gif [47]: /embed/mml-math-47.gif [48]: F1/embed/mml-math-48.gif [49]: F1/embed/mml-math-49.gif [50]: /embed/mml-math-50.gif [51]: /embed/mml-math-51.gif [52]: /embed/mml-math-52.gif [53]: /embed/mml-math-53.gif [54]: /embed/mml-math-54.gif [55]: /embed/mml-math-55.gif [56]: /embed/mml-math-56.gif [57]: /embed/mml-math-57.gif [58]: /embed/mml-math-58.gif [59]: /embed/mml-math-59.gif [60]: /embed/mml-math-60.gif [61]: /embed/mml-math-61.gif [62]: /embed/mml-math-62.gif [63]: /embed/mml-math-63.gif [64]: /embed/mml-math-64.gif [65]: /embed/mml-math-65.gif [66]: /embed/mml-math-66.gif [67]: /embed/mml-math-67.gif [68]: /embed/mml-math-68.gif [69]: /embed/mml-math-69.gif [70]: /embed/mml-math-70.gif [71]: /embed/mml-math-71.gif [72]: /embed/mml-math-72.gif [73]: /embed/mml-math-73.gif [74]: /embed/mml-math-74.gif [75]: /embed/mml-math-75.gif [76]: /embed/mml-math-76.gif [77]: /embed/mml-math-77.gif [78]: F3/embed/mml-math-78.gif [79]: F3/embed/mml-math-79.gif [80]: F3/embed/mml-math-80.gif [81]: F3/embed/mml-math-81.gif [82]: /embed/mml-math-82.gif [83]: /embed/mml-math-83.gif [84]: /embed/mml-math-84.gif [85]: /embed/mml-math-85.gif [86]: /embed/mml-math-86.gif [87]: /embed/mml-math-87.gif [88]: /embed/mml-math-88.gif [89]: /embed/mml-math-89.gif [90]: /embed/mml-math-90.gif [91]: /embed/mml-math-91.gif [92]: /embed/mml-math-92.gif [93]: /embed/mml-math-93.gif [94]: /embed/mml-math-94.gif [95]: /embed/mml-math-95.gif [96]: /embed/mml-math-96.gif [97]: /embed/mml-math-97.gif [98]: /embed/mml-math-98.gif [99]: /embed/mml-math-99.gif [100]: /embed/mml-math-100.gif [101]: /embed/mml-math-101.gif [102]: /embed/mml-math-102.gif [103]: /embed/mml-math-103.gif [104]: /embed/mml-math-104.gif [105]: /embed/mml-math-105.gif [106]: /embed/mml-math-106.gif [107]: /embed/mml-math-107.gif [108]: /embed/mml-math-108.gif [109]: /embed/mml-math-109.gif [110]: /embed/mml-math-110.gif [111]: /embed/mml-math-111.gif [112]: /embed/mml-math-112.gif [113]: /embed/mml-math-113.gif [114]: /embed/mml-math-114.gif [115]: /embed/mml-math-115.gif [116]: /embed/mml-math-116.gif [117]: /embed/mml-math-117.gif [118]: /embed/mml-math-118.gif [119]: /embed/mml-math-119.gif [120]: /embed/mml-math-120.gif [121]: /embed/mml-math-121.gif [122]: /embed/mml-math-122.gif [123]: /embed/mml-math-123.gif [124]: /embed/mml-math-124.gif [125]: /embed/mml-math-125.gif [126]: /embed/mml-math-126.gif [127]: /embed/mml-math-127.gif [128]: /embed/mml-math-128.gif [129]: /embed/mml-math-129.gif