If you are experiencing problems downloading PDF or HTML fulltext, our helpdesk recommend clearing your browser cache and trying again. If you need help in clearing your cache, please click here . Still need help? Email help@ingentaconnect.com

Influence of 4 Interfaces in the Assessment of Maximal Respiratory Pressures

The full text article is not available for purchase.

The publisher only permits individual articles to be downloaded by subscribers.

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The measurement of maximal respiratory pressure (MRP) is a procedure widely used in clinical practice to evaluate respiratory muscle strength through the maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax) and maximal expiratory pressure (PEmax). Its clinical applications include diagnostic procedures and evaluating responses to interventions. However, there is great variability in the equipment and measurement procedures. Understanding the impacts of the characteristics of different interfaces can augment the repeatability of this method and help to establish widely applicable predictive equations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of 4 different interfaces on a subject's capacity to generate MRP and the impact of these interfaces on the repeatability of these measurements. METHODS: Fifty healthy subjects (mean ± SD age 26.36 ± 4.89 y) with normal spirometry were evaluated. MRP was measured by a digital manometer connected to 4 interfaces using different combinations of mouthpieces and tubes. The following variables were analyzed: maximum mean pressure, peak pressure, plateau pressure, and plateau variation. Analysis of variance for repeated measures or a Friedman test was used to compare the 4 interfaces, with P < .008 after Bonferroni adjustment considered significant. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the 4 interfaces with respect to maximum mean pressure, peak pressure, plateau pressure, or plateau variation for PImax (P ≥ .49) or PEmax (P ≥ .11), nor did the number of tests performed to fulfill the criteria of repeatability for PImax (P = .69) or PEmax (P = .47) differ among the 4 interfaces. CONCLUSIONS: PImax and PEmax values seem not to be influenced by the different interfaces studied, suggesting that patient comfort and availability of interfaces can be considered.

Keywords: maximal expiratory pressure; maximal inspiratory pressure; mouthpiece; muscle strength

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4187/respcare.01078

Publication date: March 1, 2012

More about this publication?

Tools

Favourites

Share Content

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
ingentaconnect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more