Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Ventilatory assistance in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy

F. Lofaso, D. Orlikowski, J-C. Raphael
European Respiratory Journal 2006 28: 468-469; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00059906
F. Lofaso
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D. Orlikowski
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J-C. Raphael
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) leads to progressive muscle weakness, causing respiratory failure 1, 2. Untreated patients die at <25 yrs of age, and the mean age of death in the 1960s was 15 yrs. The introduction of mechanical ventilation has improved survival compared with historical controls 1–3. This finding has led to general agreement that noninvasive ventilation prolongs life in patients with DMD, although no controlled studies have been performed to confirm this hypothesis 4.

Noninvasive mechanical ventilation is initially offered at night to treat sleep-related breathing disorders and hypoventilation, which are common in patients with DMD 5, 6. Breathing during sleep should be evaluated by polysomnography with continuous CO2 monitoring 7, or by continuous CO2 monitoring alone if polysomnography is not available. Overnight pulse oximetry combined with an early-morning arterial blood gas measurement (to detect a base excess) may also be used to monitor nocturnal ventilation.

As the disease progresses, hypoventilation starts to occur during the daytime, and additional daytime ventilation is offered 4. When noninvasive mechanical ventilation is inadequately effective, poorly tolerated or not feasible owing to severe upper airway dysfunction, invasive ventilation via a tracheostomy may be considered 4. Preliminary results suggested that mechanical ventilation by tracheostomy was more effective than noninvasive mechanical ventilation in preventing death, although disability was more severe in the tracheostomised patients 3.

Noninvasive ventilation via a mouthpiece provides round-the-clock ventilatory assistance to patients with little or no vital capacity, which may improve the effectiveness of ventilation and, with assisted coughing techniques, delay the need for tracheostomy 4. In the current issue of the European Respiratory Journal, Toussaint et al. 8 report on outcomes seen with this technique over a mean period of 8.6 yrs. This is the first study of outcomes in patients with DMD receiving 24-h noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Of the 42 patients, 10 died before tracheostomy: five from heart failure with low-output syndrome, two from sudden death and three from acute respiratory failure. Whether these patients would have survived with tracheostomy cannot be determined. Another unanswered question is whether tracheostomy would have induced other causes of death in these patients. A randomised study comparing 24-h noninvasive ventilation via a mouthpiece and ventilation via a tracheostomy could answer these questions but is unlikely to be conducted, as it would raise formidable practical problems. However, the study by Toussaint et al. 8 provides valuable information.

First, although comparisons with other studies are difficult, the mean survival was 31 yrs, suggesting that this approach did prolong life compared to the experience at the Newcastle Muscle Centre (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK), where home ventilation has been used since 1989 1.

Secondly, respiratory failure caused 30% (three out of 10) to 50% (five out of 10, including the sudden deaths) of the deaths. Therefore, although respiratory failure was not completely eliminated by 24-h noninvasive ventilation, heart failure became the leading cause of death (50–70% of deaths). However, because invasive mechanical ventilation may be an important optimiser of cardiovascular function 9, tracheostomy might conceivably also treat heart failure.

Thirdly, figure 4 in the report by Toussaint et al. 8 clearly suggests that, contrary to those authors’ comment, transcutaneous CO2 tension remained above 5.99 kPa and 6.65 kPa in eight and four patients, respectively, after initiation of 24-h mouthpiece noninvasive ventilation.

Fourthly, in their discussion, Toussaint et al. 8 clearly outline the advantages of mouth breathing and the disadvantages of tracheostomy in patients with DMD. However, tracheostomy may also have a number of advantages: ventilation is more secure and effective, and direct airway suctioning can be performed during periods of airway hypersecretion. By reducing the work of breathing 10, tracheostomy may also reduce the number of hours of ventilatory support needed per day. In addition, swallowing can be preserved, and speech can be obtained during both inspiration and expiration in invasively ventilated patients 11.

Daytime noninvasive ventilation via a mouthpiece should not be viewed as an alternative to tracheostomy. There is widespread agreement that noninvasive ventilation is preferable to invasive mechanical ventilation at the early stages of DMD 4. The study by Toussaint et al. 8 demonstrates that patients with DMD should try diurnal noninvasive ventilation via a mouthpiece when nocturnal noninvasive ventilation becomes inadequately effective. However, the observational data reported by Toussaint et al. 8 also highlight the limitations of this technique. The current authors believe that ventilation via tracheostomy still has a place in the management of DMD, albeit a far smaller one than in the past.

Determining the best date for tracheostomy in patients with DMD remains a challenge. Toussaint et al. 8 show that death by respiratory failure can occur despite 24-h ventilation, adding to the evidence that respiratory failure develops insidiously in DMD. Furthermore, the large proportion of deaths due to heart failure invites questions about the possible effectiveness of invasive ventilation compared with noninvasive ventilation in improving or preventing heart failure. Thus, it is necessary to determine whether tracheostomy should be offered prophylactically, reserved for patients who are completely unable to breathe independently and/or performed when the first signs of heart failure develop. Studies of the prognosis and quality of life of tracheostomised DMD patients would help to answer this question 3, 12.

In addition, the decision to perform tracheostomy should only be taken with the patient's informed consent and after careful discussion of the impact of social factors and living arrangements. It should also be noted that the access to the resources necessary to support patients living at home with tracheostomy ventilation varies widely throughout Europe; mouthpiece ventilation may be especially valuable in countries where these resources are scarce.

    • © ERS Journals Ltd

    References

    1. ↵
      Eagle M, Baudouin SV, Chandler C, Giddings DR, Bullock R, Bushby K. Survival in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: improvements in life expectancy since 1967 and the impact of home nocturnal ventilation. Neuromuscul Disord 2002;12:926–929.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      Jeppesen J, Green A, Steffensen BF, Rahbek J. The Duchenne muscular dystrophy population in Denmark, 1977–2001: prevalence, incidence and survival in relation to the introduction of ventilator use. Neuromuscul Disord 2003;13:804–812.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      Raphael J-C, Chevret S, Chastang CI, Bouvet F. French Multicentric Group. A prospective multicentre study of home mechanical ventilation in Duchenne de Boulogne muscular dystrophy. Eur Respir Rev 1992;2:312–316.
      OpenUrl
    4. ↵
      Finder JD, Birnkrant D, Carl J, et al. Respiratory care of the patient with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: ATS consensus statement. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004;170:456–465.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      Barbe F, Quera-Salva MA, McCann C, et al. Sleep-related respiratory disturbances in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Eur Respir J 1994;7:1403–1408.
      OpenUrlAbstract
    6. ↵
      Smith PE, Edwards RH, Calverley PM. Ventilation and breathing pattern during sleep in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Chest 1989;96:1346–1351.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      Lofaso F, Quera-Salva MA. Polysomnography for the management of progressive neuromuscular disorders. Eur Respir J 2002;19:989–990.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      Toussaint M, Steens M, Wasteels G, Soudon P. Diurnal ventilation via mouthpiece: survival in end-stage Duchenne patients. Eur Respir J 2006;28:549–555.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    9. ↵
      Lemaire F, Teboul JL, Cinotti L, et al. Acute left ventricular dysfunction during unsuccessful weaning from mechanical ventilation. Anesthesiology 1988;69:171–179.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    10. ↵
      Chadda K, Louis B, Benaissa L, et al. Physiological effects of decannulation in tracheostomized patients. Intensive Care Med 2002;28:1761–1767.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. ↵
      Prigent H, Samuel C, Louis B, et al. Comparative effects of two ventilatory modes on speech in tracheostomized patients with neuromuscular disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003;167:114–119.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      Raphael JC, Dazord A, Jaillard P, et al. Assessment of quality of life for home ventilated patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Rev Neurol (Paris) 2002;158:453–460.
    View Abstract
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 28 Issue 3 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Journal: 28 (3)
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Ventilatory assistance in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Citation Tools
    Ventilatory assistance in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy
    F. Lofaso, D. Orlikowski, J-C. Raphael
    European Respiratory Journal Sep 2006, 28 (3) 468-469; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00059906

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    Ventilatory assistance in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy
    F. Lofaso, D. Orlikowski, J-C. Raphael
    European Respiratory Journal Sep 2006, 28 (3) 468-469; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.06.00059906
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • References
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • GM-CSF targeting in COVID-19, an approach based on fragile foundations
    • Short and Long Term Non-Invasive Cardiopulmonary Exercise Assessment in previously Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients
    • Commemorating World Tuberculosis Day 2022
    Show more Editorial

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Reviewers
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Publication ethics and malpractice
    • Submit a manuscript

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society