Optimal stimulation settings for CMAP scan registrations^[*]

Abstract

Background The CMAP (Compound Muscle Action Potential) scan is a non-invasive electrodiagnostic tool, which provides a quick and visual assessment of motor unit potentials as electrophysiological components that together constitute the CMAP. The CMAP scan records the electrical activity of the muscle (CMAP) in response to transcutaneous stimulation of the motor nerve with gradual changes in stimulus intensity. Large MUs, including those that result from collateral reinnervation, appear in the CMAP scan as so-called steps, i.e., clearly visible jumps in CMAP amplitude. The CMAP scan also provides information on nerve excitability. This study aims to evaluate the influence of the stimulation protocol used on the CMAP scan and its quantification.

Methods The stimulus frequency (1, 2 and 3 Hz), duration (0.05, 0.1 and 0.3 ms), or number (300, 500 and 1000 stimuli) in CMAP scans of 23 subjects was systematically varied while the other two parameters were kept constant. Pain was measured by means of a visual analogue scale (VAS). Non-parametric paired tests were used to assess significant differences in excitability and step variables and VAS scores between the different stimulus parameter settings.

Results We found no effect of stimulus frequency on CMAP scan variables or VAS scores. Stimulus duration affected excitability variables significantly, with higher stimulus intensity values for shorter stimulus durations. Step variables showed a clear trend towards increasing values with decreasing stimulus number.

Conclusions A protocol delivering 500 stimuli at a frequency of 2 Hz with a 0.1 ms pulse duration optimized CMAP scan quantification with a minimum of subject discomfort, artefact and duration of the recording. CMAP scan variables were influenced by stimulus duration and number; hence, these need to be standardized in future studies.

Keywords

CMAP scan - Stimulus–response curve - Settings - Stimulus number - Stimulus frequency - Stimulus duration

^*This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

• References

• 1 Blok JH, Ruitenberg A, Maathuis EM, Visser GH. The electrophysiological muscle scan. Muscle Nerve 2007; 36: 436-446 10.1002/mus.20838 17614319
• 2 Henderson RD, Ridall GR, Pettitt AN, McCombe PA, Daube JR. The stimulus–response curve and motor unit variability in normal subjects and subjects with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve 2006; 34: 34-43 10.1002/mus.20561 16634059
• 3 Ridall PG, Pettitt AN, Henderson RD, McCombe PA. Motor unit number estimation–a Bayesian approach. Biometrics 2006; 62: 1235-1250 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2006.00577.x 17156299
• 4 Bostock H. The strength-duration relationship for excitation of myelinated nerve: computed dependence on membrane parameters. J Physiol 1983; 341: 59-74 1195322 6312032
• 5 Weiss G. Sur la possibilité de rendre comparables entre eux les appareils servant à l’excitation electrique. Archs ital Biol 1901; 35: 413-446
• 6 Burke D, Kiernan MC, Bostock H. Excitability of human axons. Clin Neurophysiol 2001; 112: 1575-1585 10.1016/S1388-2457(01)00595-8 11514239
• 7 Sriwatanakul K, Kelvie W, Lasagna L, Calimlim JF, Weis OF, Mehta G. Studies with different types of visual analog scales for measurement of pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1983; 34: 234-239 10.1038/clpt.1983.159 6872418
• 8 van Dijk JG, van der Hoeven BJ, van der Hoeven H. Repetitive nerve stimulation: effects of recording site and the nature of ’pseudofacilitation’. Clin Neurophysiol 2000; 111: 1411-1419 10.1016/S1388-2457(00)00331-X 10904222
• 9 Asawa T, Shindo M, Momoi H. Compound muscle action potentials during repetitive nerve stimulation. Muscle Nerve 2004; 29: 724-728 10.1002/mus.20037 15116378
• 10 Baumann F, Henderson RD, Tremayne F, Hutchinson N, McCombe PA. Effects of prolonged repetitive stimulation of median, ulnar and peroneal nerves. Muscle Nerve 2010; 41: 785-793 10.1002/mus.21604 20169590
• 11 Kossev A, Gantchev N, Gydikov A, Gerasimenko Y, Christova P. The effect of muscle fiber length change on motor units potentials propagation velocity. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1992; 32: 287-294 1623844
• 12 Trontelj JV. Muscle fiber conduction velocity changes with length. Muscle Nerve 1993; 16: 506-512 10.1002/mus.880160512 8515759
• 13 Maathuis EM, Drenthen J, Visser GH, Blok JH. Reproducibility of the CMAP scan. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2010; 21: 433-437 21134767