Introduction
The neuromuscular junction (NMJ) is the point of communication between the nervous system and skeletal muscle. This complex structure of the NMJ can be conceptualized as a one-way relay station with 3 main structural elements: the presynaptic terminal, the synaptic cleft, and the postsynaptic motor endplate. Signal transmission is impaired when one or more of these 3 elements are disrupted, resulting in an NMJ transmission or NMJ disorder.[1]
Neuromuscular junction transmission disorders have various causes and manifestations and include myasthenia gravis, Lambert-Eaton syndrome, and botulism. Myasthenia gravis is an acquired autoimmune disorder and is the most commonly encountered NMJ disorder in clinical practice. Diagnosing NMJ disorders requires careful history taking, physical examination, and standard electrodiagnostic testing, including nerve conduction studies (NCS) and electromyography (EMG). Electrophysiological studies that test the NMJ specifically include repetitive nerve stimulation (RNS) and single fiber electromyography (SFEMG). These specific tests can confirm the diagnosis of an NMJ disorder and pinpoint which element, or elements, of signal transmission is impaired.[2]
RNS is an electrodiagnostic technique that evaluates NMJ integrity. A modification of standard NCS, RNS utilizes an active electrode over a target muscle and a reference electrode over the distal target tendon. RNS repeatedly stimulates the target muscle at either a slow rate (2 to 5 Hz) or a fast rate (15 to 30 Hz or more) and measures the resulting compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitudes. The CMAP is the sum of action potentials from several muscle fibers. A decrement of >10% between the first and fourth CMAPs is abnormal.[2]
Standard EMG records the action potentials of a group of muscle fibers within the same motor unit. In contrast, SFEMG utilizes a specialized electrode to selectively isolate and record the action potentials of a single muscle fiber. With the addition of a 500 to 1000 Hz high-pass filter, SFEMG can record the difference in action potential onset between two muscle fibers innervated by the same motor neuron (conventional SFEMG) or the same muscle fiber stimulated repetitively (stimulated SFEMG). This difference in these measured values is termed "jitter." Any increase in jitter beyond standard reference values based on age and the specific muscle tested is considered abnormal and suggests an NMJ disorder. [3] Therefore, SFEMG serves as the more sensitive confirmatory test for NMJ disorders.
Anatomy and Physiology
Register For Free And Read The Full Article
- Search engine and full access to all medical articles
- 10 free questions in your specialty
- Free CME/CE Activities
- Free daily question in your email
- Save favorite articles to your dashboard
- Emails offering discounts
Learn more about a Subscription to StatPearls Point-of-Care
Anatomy and Physiology
Neuromuscular Junction Structure
The NMJ facilitates signal transduction between peripheral nerves and skeletal muscles. Peripheral nerve axons, surrounded by Schwann cells, end at the presynaptic terminus, also called the terminal bouton. The region of the distal presynaptic terminus that is referred to as the active zone contains localized voltage-gated calcium channels, synaptosomal associated proteins (SNAPs), SNAP receptors (SNAREs), synaptic vesicles, and various essential cell structures.
The synaptic cleft is the space between the presynaptic axon terminus and the postsynaptic muscle membrane. This space is filled with a highly electroconductive material called ground substance. Acetylcholine (ACh) is released into this space and either travels to bind with ACh receptors on the skeletal membrane or is degraded by acetylcholinesterase within the ground substance.
The postsynaptic motor endplate has a highly folded cellular membrane that receives nerve terminals. After binding released ACh, nicotinic ACh receptors within this endplate membrane undergo conformational changes permitting sodium ion influx to the myocyte cytoplasm. This influx generates an endplate potential that transmits the action potential signal to the muscle when above a certain threshold and induces contraction.[4][5]
Action Potential Signal Transduction
Voltage-gated calcium channels at the presynaptic terminal active zone trigger the release of the neurotransmitter ACh into the synaptic cleft; this neurotransmitter relays the signal between nerve axons and muscle motor endplates. Acetylcholine is stored within discrete presynaptic vesicles, with each vesicle referred to as a quantum. Each quantum is released according to one of three tiers based on availability; primary, secondary, or tertiary. Primary quanta are for immediate release, secondary quanta are for storage and primary quanta replenishment, while tertiary quanta are held in reserve.The number of primary quanta released into the synaptic cleft is determined by the action potential received. Spontaneous release occurs in small quantities and might be only a single quantum. n this situation, depolarization at the postsynaptic membrane is localized, nonpropagating, and referred to as a miniature endplate potential (MEPP). Receipt of a larger action potential results in a larger number of quanta released and greater depolarization; this is the endplate potential (EPP). An EPP that exceeds the threshold for action potential generation at the postsynaptic muscle membrane causes muscle contraction, completing the signal relay.The primary quanta pool is approximately 1000 vesicles and is depleted quickly. Sustained muscle contraction requires replenishment from secondary quanta, which number approximately 10000 vesicles. There is a 1- to 2-second lag between the release of primary and secondary quanta. Therefore, neurotransmitters in excess of that required to generate an action potential in the muscle fiber are released, contributing to the safety factor and ensuring reliably sustained muscle contraction while quanta stores are replenished.[5][6][7]
Disorders of the Neuromuscular Junction
Immune-mediated disorders, genetic disorders, or toxins can disrupt presynaptic, synaptic, or postsynaptic transmission across the NMJ. Examples include acquired or congenital myasthenia gravis (MG), Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome (LEMS), organophosphate poisoning, and botulism.[8][9][10][11]Presynaptic NMJ disorders, such as LEMS, result in attenuated neurotransmitter vesicle release and therefore reduced EPPs. This is manifested in RNS as reduced CMAP amplitudes. By comparing slow-rate and fast-rate stimulation, characteristic waveform patterns emerge.[12]Synaptic NMJ disorders include acquired or congenital acetylcholinesterase deficiency. These disease processes require RNS only infrequently; the medical history and clinical manifestations make the diagnosis clear. However, it is important to understand that patients taking prescribed acetylcholinesterase inhibitors to treat other conditions may have falsely normal results on RNS and SFEMG.[13][14]Postsynaptic NMJ disorders, such as MG, result in a reduced number of functional acetylcholine receptors and thus lower the safety factor. Muscle fibers cannot deliver sustained muscle contraction since they cannot respond typically to supramaximal ACh release. This effect, known as blocking, can manifest as reduced CMAP amplitudes during slow-rate RNS, known as a decremental response. A 10% or more decrease between the first and fourth CMAP waveforms is abnormal.[15]
Indications
Patients with symptoms, signs, and physical examination findings suggestive of a neuromuscular disorder are candidates for RNS testing. Patients with standard electrodiagnostic study findings suggestive of a neuromuscular disorder are candidates for RNS testing. Patients for whom a comprehensive medical history, physical examination, and routine electrodiagnostic testing have been nondiagnostic for other peripheral nerve pathologies are also candidates for more specific RNS testing.
Contraindications
Modern pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) with bipolar sensing are not an absolute contraindication to RNS testing; however, the function of older devices or models that use unipolar sensing may be negatively affected during RNS testing. Placing a stimulating electrode near these devices should be avoided whenever possible. In situations where this is impossible, a discussion with the managing cardiologist is warranted, as it may be possible to deactivate the device temporarily while performing RNS testing. During RNS testing, implanted deep brain stimulators, vagal nerve stimulators, and similar devices may generate artifacts of unknown significance, complicating the interpretation of RNS test results. Therefore, temporarily deactivating these devices before the study should be considered in consultation with the relevant specialist.Patients with external pacing wires and intravenous or intraarterial catheters may be at an elevated risk for conducting increased electrical current to the heart, and RNS testing should be avoided.[16]RNS is performed via surface electrodes; antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy is not a contraindication to RNS.
Equipment
The following equipment is commonly used when performing RNS.
- Temperature-controlled study room with warming blankets available
- Examination table that permits relaxed patient positioning and avoids involuntary movement
- Padded bolsters or bumps may be used
- Medical tape to secure the electrodes or immobilize digits
- Hand or elbow brace to immobilize joints
- Alcohol preparation pads
- RNS surface electrodes and recording interface
Preparation
Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors should be discontinued at least 12 hours before the study. Patients should not have received injections of botulinum toxin or similar derivatives to the target muscles within the last 3 to 6 months.
The patient should arrive at the study center rested, hydrated, nourished, and allowed to acclimate in the test room for 20 minutes. The patient must be kept warm; cooler muscle temperatures can increase the safety factor and confound results. The patient should be informed of the procedural steps and potential discomfort to reduce anticipatory anxiety. RNS is generally well tolerated.[17]
Technique or Treatment
Muscle selection for RNS testing is dictated by clinical symptoms, the ease of access to and immobilization of the target muscle and electrodes, the diagnostic probability of abnormal results, and the potential for patient discomfort. The smaller, distal muscles of the extremities are often the best initial study site; they are frequently easier to test and can acclimate the patient to RNS. The study can proceed with more proximal muscles as needed, which often have a higher diagnostic yield. RNS is most sensitive for facial muscles, and the orbicularis oculi are frequently tested whenever feasible. Despite presenting technical challenges, other muscles innervated by cranial nerves, such as the masseter, nasalis, orbicularis oris, or trapezius, can be used.[18]
After the patient has rested and the target sites warmed to 35 °C, prepare the skin with alcohol pads. Apply the active electrode over the target muscle and the reference electrode over the corresponding distal tendon.[1][19]
Slow-Rate RNS
Slow-rate RNS is initiated with a stimulation train of 5 to 10 impulses at 2 to 5 Hz, repeated three times, with 1-minute intervals in between.[1] Record the decrement between the first and fourth CMAPs.
If the decrement is >10%, direct the patient to perform maximum isometric contraction of the target muscle for 10 seconds. Immediately follow the contraction with RNS at 3 Hz to assess postexercise facilitation (recovery) and exhaustion.
If the decrement is <10% or no decrement is observed, direct the patient to perform maximum isometric contraction of the target muscle for 1 minute. Immediately follow the contraction with 3Hz RNS performed at 1-minute intervals for five intervals to assess postexercise exhaustion. If a significant decrement is noted after this testing, direct the patient to perform maximum isometric contraction for another 10 seconds, followed by 3Hz RNS, to assess the facilitation of the decrement.
Fast-Rate RNS
After the supramaximal baseline and slow-rate RNS results for the test muscle have been recorded, perform tetanic stimulation with high-frequency RNS by delivering a stimulation train of 15 to 30 Hz over 2 to 3 seconds. If the patient cannot voluntarily produce maximal isometric contraction in the target muscle, higher frequency RNS, up to 50 Hz, can be performed; this is often reserved for unconscious patients as this level of stimulation is painful. CMAP amplitudes are recorded, and any incremental response is noted.[20]
Complications
Complications from RNS are uncommon, although severe adverse events such as cardiac arrhythmia and its sequelae have been reported. Precautions should be taken for patients with implanted electrical devices or intravascular lines.[21]
Clinical Significance
Postsynaptic NMJ disorders such as MG have reduced safety factors and manifest with decremental CMAP responses with characteristic waveforms during slow-rate RNS. MG often initially presents with ocular manifestations; these can be the only presenting symptoms in a subgroup of patients.[22][23]
Presynaptic NMJ disorders such as LEMS may also have reduced safety factors; however, the causative pathology is a radical reduction in ACh release resulting in decreased baseline CMAPs of resting muscle. In patients with LEMS, supramaximal stimulation with high-frequency pulses can significantly increase presynaptic quanta activation and release, raising the abnormally low CMAP amplitudes. Typically, the fifth waveform can demonstrate CMAPs with a ≥100% increase compared to the initial waveform.
Patients with LEMS can demonstrate both a decremental response on slow-rate RNS and an incremental response on fast-rate RNS. LEMS can be a paraneoplastic syndrome or a nonparaneoplastic process resulting from an autoimmune disease. Paraneoplastic LEMS is most commonly associated with small carcinoma of the lung. Rarely, the underlying malignancy may be a non-small cell bronchogenic carcinoma, prostate cancer, or a lymphoproliferative disorder. Regardless of etiology, patients with LEMS often present with proximal lower extremity muscle weakness, dysreflexia, and autonomic dysfunction due to presynaptic inhibition of ACh release.[24][25][26][27][28]
Organophosphate poisoning and botulism typically demonstrate a decremental response on slow-rate RNS.[29]
Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes
Neuromuscular disorders can manifest with various symptoms across diverse populations, making the diagnosis challenging. Therefore, primary care providers, neurological specialists, nurses, pharmacists, technicians, and other healthcare professionals operating as interprofessional teams must communicate effectively and coordinate care to improve patient outcomes.
While neurologists and electrodiagnostic technicians are always involved in performing and interpreting RNS and related electrodiagnostic studies, other health professionals can help efficiently guide the patient through the process. RNS is most useful when confirming the suspicion of an NMJ disorder rather than as a screening tool. Primary care providers who recognize signs and symptoms, paired with a relevant clinical and social history, can recommend further evaluation by the electrodiagnostic team.
In the hospital setting, nurses interact with patients frequently and have real-time knowledge of the patient's physical status and the location of venous, arterial, or pacing lines. Understanding the safety precautions necessary when performing RNS in the inpatient setting reduces the risk of complications and improves patient safety. Pharmacists play an essential role in recognizing medications that may interfere with the interpretation of RNS results and assist with managing the treatment regimen. This interprofessional team approach, where all members are empowered to make decisions, will yield the best patient outcomes.[Level 5]
References
Pascuzzi RM, Bodkin CL. Myasthenia Gravis and Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome: New Developments in Diagnosis and Treatment. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment. 2022:18():3001-3022. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S296714. Epub 2022 Dec 22 [PubMed PMID: 36578903]
Howard JF Jr. Electrodiagnosis of disorders of neuromuscular transmission. Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America. 2013 Feb:24(1):169-92. doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2012.08.013. Epub 2012 Oct 26 [PubMed PMID: 23177038]
Selvan VA. Single-fiber EMG: A review. Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology. 2011 Jan:14(1):64-7. doi: 10.4103/0972-2327.78058. Epub [PubMed PMID: 21654930]
Nishimune H, Shigemoto K. Practical Anatomy of the Neuromuscular Junction in Health and Disease. Neurologic clinics. 2018 May:36(2):231-240. doi: 10.1016/j.ncl.2018.01.009. Epub [PubMed PMID: 29655446]
Farrugia ME, Vincent A. Autoimmune mediated neuromuscular junction defects. Current opinion in neurology. 2010 Oct:23(5):489-95. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e32833cc968. Epub [PubMed PMID: 20651592]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceAlbuquerque EX, Barnard EA, Porter CW, Warnick JE. The density of acetylcholine receptors and their sensitivity in the postsynaptic membrane of muscle endplates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1974 Jul:71(7):2818-22 [PubMed PMID: 4546945]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceWood SJ, Slater CR. Safety factor at the neuromuscular junction. Progress in neurobiology. 2001 Jul:64(4):393-429 [PubMed PMID: 11275359]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceOmar A, Marwaha K, Bollu PC. Physiology, Neuromuscular Junction. StatPearls. 2023 Jan:(): [PubMed PMID: 29261907]
Nicolle MW. Myasthenia Gravis and Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome. Continuum (Minneapolis, Minn.). 2016 Dec:22(6, Muscle and Neuromuscular Junction Disorders):1978-2005 [PubMed PMID: 27922503]
Maselli RA, Soliven BC. Analysis of the organophosphate-induced electromyographic response to repetitive nerve stimulation: paradoxical response to edrophonium and D-tubocurarine. Muscle & nerve. 1991 Dec:14(12):1182-8 [PubMed PMID: 1662770]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceGutmann L, Bodensteiner J, Gutierrez A. Electrodiagnosis of botulism. The Journal of pediatrics. 1992 Nov:121(5 Pt 1):835 [PubMed PMID: 1294122]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceOh SJ, Kurokawa K, Claussen GC, Ryan HF Jr. Electrophysiological diagnostic criteria of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome. Muscle & nerve. 2005 Oct:32(4):515-20 [PubMed PMID: 16003742]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceAldunate R, Casar JC, Brandan E, Inestrosa NC. Structural and functional organization of synaptic acetylcholinesterase. Brain research. Brain research reviews. 2004 Dec:47(1-3):96-104 [PubMed PMID: 15572165]
Level 3 (low-level) evidenceLiewluck T, Selcen D, Engel AG. Beneficial effects of albuterol in congenital endplate acetylcholinesterase deficiency and Dok-7 myasthenia. Muscle & nerve. 2011 Nov:44(5):789-94. doi: 10.1002/mus.22176. Epub 2011 Sep 23 [PubMed PMID: 21952943]
Oh SJ, Eslami N, Nishihira T, Sarala PK, Kuba T, Elmore RS, Sunwoo IN, Ro YI. Electrophysiological and clinical correlation in myasthenia gravis. Annals of neurology. 1982 Oct:12(4):348-54 [PubMed PMID: 7149660]
Gechev A, Kane NM, Koltzenburg M, Rao DG, van der Star R. Potential risks of iatrogenic complications of nerve conduction studies (NCS) and electromyography (EMG). Clinical neurophysiology practice. 2016:1():62-66. doi: 10.1016/j.cnp.2016.09.003. Epub 2016 Oct 13 [PubMed PMID: 30214961]
Rutkove SB. Effects of temperature on neuromuscular electrophysiology. Muscle & nerve. 2001 Jul:24(7):867-82 [PubMed PMID: 11410914]
Zambelis T, Kokotis P, Karandreas N. Repetitive nerve stimulation of facial and hypothenar muscles: relative sensitivity in different myasthenia gravis subgroups. European neurology. 2011:65(4):203-7. doi: 10.1159/000324915. Epub 2011 Mar 17 [PubMed PMID: 21412008]
AAEM Quality Assurance Committee. American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Literature review of the usefulness of repetitive nerve stimulation and single fiber EMG in the electrodiagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected myasthenia gravis or Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome. Muscle & nerve. 2001 Sep:24(9):1239-47 [PubMed PMID: 11494281]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceSun YT, Lin TS. Is the stimulation frequency of the repetitive nerve stimulation test that you choose appropriate? Acta neurologica Taiwanica. 2004 Dec:13(4):186-91 [PubMed PMID: 15666694]
Cronin EM, Gray J, Abi-Saleh B, Wilkoff BL, Levin KH. Safety of repetitive nerve stimulation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Muscle & nerve. 2013 Jun:47(6):840-4. doi: 10.1002/mus.23707. Epub 2013 Apr 21 [PubMed PMID: 23605784]
Costa J, Evangelista T, Conceição I, de Carvalho M. Repetitive nerve stimulation in myasthenia gravis--relative sensitivity of different muscles. Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. 2004 Dec:115(12):2776-82 [PubMed PMID: 15546785]
Gilhus NE. Myasthenia Gravis. The New England journal of medicine. 2016 Dec 29:375(26):2570-2581. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1602678. Epub [PubMed PMID: 28029925]
Titulaer MJ, Verschuuren JJ. Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome: tumor versus nontumor forms. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2008:1132():129-34. doi: 10.1196/annals.1405.030. Epub [PubMed PMID: 18567862]
Chiou-Tan FY, Gilchrist JM. Repetitive nerve stimulation and single-fiber electromyography in the evaluation of patients with suspected myasthenia gravis or Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome: Review of recent literature. Muscle & nerve. 2015 Sep:52(3):455-62. doi: 10.1002/mus.24745. Epub 2015 Jul 24 [PubMed PMID: 26109387]
Baslo MB, Deymeer F, Serdaroglu P, Parman Y, Ozdemir C, Cuttini M. Decrement pattern in Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome is different from myasthenia gravis. Neuromuscular disorders : NMD. 2006 Jul:16(7):454-8 [PubMed PMID: 16806929]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceWirtz PW, Willcox N, van der Slik AR, Lang B, Maddison P, Koeleman BP, Giphart MJ, Wintzen AR, Roep BO, Verschuuren JJ. HLA and smoking in prediction and prognosis of small cell lung cancer in autoimmune Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome. Journal of neuroimmunology. 2005 Feb:159(1-2):230-7 [PubMed PMID: 15652424]
Payne M, Bradbury P, Lang B, Vincent A, Han C, Newsom-Davis J, Talbot D. Prospective study into the incidence of Lambert Eaton myasthenic syndrome in small cell lung cancer. Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. 2010 Jan:5(1):34-8. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181c3f4f1. Epub [PubMed PMID: 19934775]
Level 2 (mid-level) evidenceNaik KR, Saroja AO, Hesarur N, Patil RS. Prospective Hospital-Based Clinical and Electrophysiological Evaluation of Acute Organophosphate Poisoning. Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology. 2019 Jan-Mar:22(1):91-95. doi: 10.4103/aian.AIAN_137_18. Epub [PubMed PMID: 30692766]