Comparison of Ultrasound with Fluoroscopy to Assess Diaphragmatic Paralysis After Congenital Heart Disease Surgery (USG vs Fluoro)

January 3, 2025 updated by: Sisca Natalia Siagian, National Cardiovascular Center Harapan Kita Hospital Indonesia
Diaphragmatic paralysis after congenital heart disease (CHD) surgery can increase patient mortality and morbidity, especially for the vulnerable pediatric patient. Establishing a diagnosis of this disorder is key for making follow-up decisions such as diaphragm plication. Fluoroscopy as the gold standard has limitations in assessing diaphragmatic paralysis after CHD surgery Objective: To compare diaphragmatic ultrasound with fluoroscopy as the diagnostic method for diaphragmatic paralysis after CHD surgery.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Diaphragmatic paralysis is a common cause of delayed recovery and morbidity after cardiovascular surgery which accounts for 64% of all causes of phrenic nerve lesions. Similarly, congenital heart disease surgery is commonly associated with phrenic nerve injury resulting in diaphragmatic dysfunction in pediatric patients with an incidence of 0.3-5.4%. The phrenic nerve can be injured through various mechanisms such as hypothermia due to ice cold slush for myocardial protection, dissection near the pedicle area of the internal thoracic artery, dissection or conduction of heat along the path or area of the phrenic nerve, etc. Diaphragmatic paralysis is usually transient and not clinically significant in adult, but it is a serious and life-threatening complication that causes respiratory distress in pediatric patient.

Various diagnostic techniques can be used to assess diaphragmatic paralysis such as chest X-ray, fluoroscopy, computed tomography (CT), dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and electromyography. The fluoroscopy test has been the method of choice to diagnose diaphragmatic paralysis as it is relatively easy to perform. Earlier studies diagnosed unilateral diaphragmatic paralysis by evaluating the dynamic motion of the diaphragm using fluoroscopy. However, there are several disadvantages of fluoroscopy tests such as requiring cooperation from the patient, requiring the patient in an upright position, the difficulty in transporting patients from the ICU to the fluoroscopy room or cath lab, especially in unstable patients who may deteriorate, the cumulative burden of exposure to radiation, and the relatively high costs.

Diaphragmatic ultrasound (two-dimensional combined with M-mode) is a fast, simple, cheap, accurate, non-radiation noninvasive study that is widely available and increasingly used both in clinical setting and researches. Bedside ultrasound can be used for immobilized or intensive care patients. The simpler procedure helps assessing diaphragmatic paralysis in pediatric patients. The combination of B-mode and M-mode in ultrasound can quantitatively assess the distance and amplitude of diaphragm motion on both sides so that it may provide objective quantification. Therefore, this study was conducted to compare diaphragmatic ultrasound with fluoroscopy as the diagnostic method of diaphragmatic paralysis after congenital heart disease surgery.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

41

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • DKI Jakarta
      • Jakarta, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia, 11420
        • National Cardiovascular Center Harapan Kita

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients who had congenital heart disease (CHD) surgery in National Cardiovascular Center Harapan Kita (NCCHK)
  • Suspected of diaphragmatic paralysis based on clinical symptoms and X-ray examination.

The conditions indicating diaphragmatic paralysis in patients after CHD surgery were mechanical ventilation dependence, increased respiratory effort and reduced peripheral oxygen saturation when breathing spontaneously, recurrent respiratory tract infection, and chest X-ray showing right hemidiaphragm >2 cm higher than left diaphragm or left diaphragm at the same level or higher than right diaphragm

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients who could not achieve oxygen saturation targets with the help of minimal pressure support such as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or pressure support intermittent mandatory ventilation (P SIMV)
  • Refusal from the patient/family to be included in the study
  • Past medical history of diaphragmatic disorder.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
  • Allocation: N/A
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Assessment of Diaphragmatic Paralysis after Congenital Heart Disease Surgery
The included patients who were suspected of diaphragmatic paralysis based on clinical symptoms and X-ray examination would first undergo fluoroscopy test, continued by ultrasound examination less than 24 hours apart. The patients were weaned off from mechanical ventilation (spontaneous breathing) and switched to minimal mechanical ventilation support (CPAP/P SIMV) before the examination. The examination and data collection were performed by two different operators: diaphragmatic ultrasound by pediatric intencivist and fluoroscopy test by pediatric cardiologist.

Diaphragmatic ultrasound was performed bedside in the ICU with supine position. Diaphragmatic thickness was measured by placing the ultrasound on 8th-10th intercostal space between anterior and mid-axillary line with marker at 12 o'clock. B-mode ultrasound was used to measure the distance between thoracic and abdominal diaphragm which resulted in the diaphragmatic thickness at inspiration (DTi) and diaphragmatic thickness at expiration (DTe).

The ultrasound was then placed on the subcostal area between anterior and mid-axillary line with marker at 12 o'clock to observe the diaphragmatic motion on each side. Measurement of diaphragmatic excursion as well as recording and evaluation of diaphragmatic sliding and motion were performed during both inspiration and expiration using M-mode.

Fluoroscopy test was conducted in cathlab with supine position and anteroposterior (AP) projection for at least 5 breathing cycles. The fluoroscopy recording was then expertised and interpreted by the pediatric cardiologist in charge.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV)
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 2 years
through study completion, an average of 2 years

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Incidence of Diaphragmatic Paralysis after congenital heart disease surgery
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 2 years
through study completion, an average of 2 years
Distress Events during Fluoroscopy and Ultrasound test
Time Frame: through study completion, an average of 2 years
During both procedures, patients' conditions were documented to monitor any distress event. Distress event was positive if the patients' conditions met one of these criteria: (1) increased heart rate > 90th percentile based on age according to Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS), (2) decreased heart rate < -90th percentile based on age according to PALS, (3) cardiac arrest, (4) life-threatening arrhythmia, (5) decreased peripheral oxygen saturation >20% from baseline/preprocedure, (6) increased body temperature >38oC, and (7) partial or generalized seizure.
through study completion, an average of 2 years

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

June 1, 2022

Primary Completion (Actual)

May 31, 2024

Study Completion (Actual)

July 31, 2024

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

December 27, 2024

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 3, 2025

First Posted (Actual)

March 25, 2025

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 25, 2025

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 3, 2025

Last Verified

December 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Diaphragmatic Paralysis

Clinical Trials on Diaphragmatic Ultrasound

Subscribe