Reliability and Validity of Maximal Respiratory Pressures.

BACKGROUND: Maximal respiratory pressure is used to assess the inspiratory and expiratory muscles strength by using maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax ) and maximal expiratory pressure (PEmax). This study aimed to summarize and evaluate the reliability and validity of maximal respiratory pressure measurements. METHODS: This systematic review followed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) recommendations and was reported by using the PRISMA checklist. Studies published before March 2023 were searched in PubMed and EMBASE databases. RESULTS: A total of 642 studies were identified by using the online search strategy and manual search (602 and 40, respectively). Twenty-three studies were included. The level of evidence for test-retest reliability was moderate for PImax and PEmax (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.70 for both), inter-rater reliability was low for PImax and very low for PEmax (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.70 for both), and the measurement error was very low for PImax and PEmax. In addition, concurrent validity presented a high level of evidence for PImax and PEmax (r > 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Only concurrent validity of maximal respiratory pressure measured with the manometers evaluated in this review presented a high level of evidence. The quality of clinical studies by using maximal respiratory pressure would be improved if more high-quality studies on measurement properties, by following well established guidelines and the COSMIN initiative, were available.

Maximal respiratory pressures: Measurements at functional residual capacity in individuals with different health conditions using a digital manometer.

BACKGROUND: Measuring maximal respiratory pressure is a widely used method of investigating the strength of inspiratory and expiratory muscles. OBJECTIVES: To compare inspiratory pressures obtained at functional residual capacity (FRC) with measures at residual volume (RV), and expiratory pressures obtained at FRC with measures at total lung capacity (TLC) in individuals with different health conditions: post-COVID-19, COPD, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), heart failure (CHF), and stroke; and to compare the mean differences between measurements at FRC and RV/TLC among the groups. METHODS: Inspiratory and expiratory pressures were obtained randomly at different lung volumes. Mixed factorial analysis of covariance with repeated measures was used to compare measurements at different lung volumes within and among groups. RESULTS: Seventy-five individuals were included in the final analyses (15 individuals with each health condition). Maximal inspiratory pressures at FRC were lower than RV [mean difference (95% CI): 11.3 (5.8, 16.8); 8.4 (2.3, 14.5); 11.1 (5.5, 16.7); 12.8 (7.1, 18.4); 8.0 (2.6, 13.4) for COVID-19, COPD, IPF, CHF, and stroke, respectively] and maximal expiratory pressures at FRC were lower than TLC [mean difference (95% CI): 51.9 (37.4, 55.5); 60.9 (44.2, 77.7); 62.9 (48.1, 77.8); 58.0 (43.9, 73.8); 57.2 (42.9, 71.6) for COVID-19, COPD, IPF, CHF, and stroke, respectively]. All mean differences were similar among groups. CONCLUSION: Although inspiratory and expiratory pressures at FRC were lower than measures obtained at RV/TLC for the five groups of health conditions, the mean differences between measurements at different lung volumes were similar among groups, which raises the discussion about the influence of the viscoelastic properties of the lungs on maximal respiratory pressure.

New method for evaluating maximal respiratory pressures: Concurrent validity, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability.

BACKGROUND: Maximal respiratory pressures (MRP) obtained at functional residual capacity (FRC) may reflect the real respiratory muscle pressure. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate concurrent validity, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability of MRP performed with a new instrument in healthy individuals, and to compare values obtained at different volumes in healthy individuals and individuals with COPD. METHODS: MRP of 100 healthy individuals were obtained using the TrueForce and the MicroRPM® at residual volume (RV) and total lung capacity (TLC) to evaluate concurrent validity. MRP were obtained at FRC using the TrueForce to evaluate reliability. Comparisons of inspiratory pressure values (FRC compared to RV) and expiratory pressure values (FRC compared to TLC) were performed with 100 healthy individuals and 15 individuals with COPD. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.77 and 0.86 for concurrent validity for inspiratory and expiratory pressures, respectively. Test-retest reliability showed an ICC of 0.87 for inspiratory pressure, and 0.78 for expiratory pressure; inter-rater reliability showed an ICC of 0.91 for inspiratory pressure, and 0.84 for expiratory pressure. Measurements performed at RV and TLC were higher when compared to FRC [mean difference (95%CI)= -8.30 (-11.82, -4.78) cmH2O; -37.29 (-42.63, -31.96) cmH2O] in healthy individuals, and -11.09 (-15.83, -6.35) cmH2O; -57.14 (-71.05, -43.05) cmH2O in COPD, for inspiratory and expiratory pressures, respectively. CONCLUSION: MRP performed with the TrueForce presented good concurrent validity, good test-retest reliability, excellent inter-rater reliability for inspiratory pressure and good inter-rater reliability for expiratory pressure. MRP were lower when obtained at FRC for healthy individuals and with COPD.

Rib cage distortion and dynamic hyperinflation during two exercise intensities in people with COPD.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between rib cage (RC) motion abnormalities, dynamic hyperinflation (DH), and exercise capacity in people with COPD is controversial. AIM: To investigate RC distortion and operational chest wall volumes during moderate and high constant-rate exercises in people with COPD. METHODS: Seven male participants [median(Q1-Q3) age: 63(60.0-66.0) years; FEV1: 39.0(38.0-63.0)% of predicted] performed a symptom-limited incremental exercise testing on cycle ergometer, followed by constant-rate tests (60 % and 80 % of peak work rate). Optoelectronic plethysmography was used to evaluate RC distortion: phase angle-PhAng, inspiratory phase ratio-PhRIB, expiratory phase ratio-PhREB; and chest wall volumes: end-inspiratory volume-Vei and end-expiratory volume-Vee. RESULTS: PhRIB and PhREB significantly increased during both constant-rate exercise tests, without difference between them. In general, Vei of the chest wall significantly increased in both exercise intensities while Vee did not change. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of RC distortion seemed not to limit the exercise capacity in people with COPD evaluated, and it was present even in the absence of DH.

Inspiratory muscle training reduces dyspnea during activities of daily living and improves inspiratory muscle function and quality of life in patients with advanced lung disease.

Aim: To evaluate the effects of an inspiratory muscle training (IMT) program on dyspnea during activities of daily living, inspiratory muscle function, functional capacity, and quality of life in patients with advanced lung disease (ALD).Methods: Pre-post interventional study in which patients with ALD from the Advanced Lung Disease and Pre Lung Transplantation Ambulatory Clinic were included. Patients performed home-based high-intensity interval IMT for 8 weeks (two sessions per day, daily). In each session, patients performed two sets of 30 breaths, with a 2-min rest between sets. Dyspnea during activities of daily life, primary outcome - assessed by the London Chest Activity of Daily Living scale-LCADL, inspiratory muscle function (MIP and endurance test), distance on the 6-min walking test [6MWD], and quality of life (St George Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]) were measured pre-IMT, post-IMT, and 3 months after the intervention (follow-up).Results: Dyspnea during activities of daily living significantly decreased after 8 weeks of IMT (LCADLpre = 31.5 [IQR = 23-37.25], LCADLpost = 26 [IQR = 20.75-32], LCADLfollow-up = 30.5 [IQR = 20-35]; p < .03). After IMT, there was an improvement in inspiratory muscle strength (p < .001) and endurance (p < .001). Functional capacity evaluated using the 6MWD increased but did not reach significance (p = .79) There was also a significant improvement in quality of life, as demonstrated by the SGRQ (p < .004).Conclusions: Our results suggest that IMT was able to reduce dyspnea during activities of daily living, as well as improve inspiratory muscle function, and quality of life in patients with ADL, and these benefits were sustained for 3 months.

Effects of inspiratory muscle training on resting breathing pattern in patients with advanced lung disease.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of interval high intensity inspiratory muscle training (IMT) on resting breathing pattern in patients with advanced lung disease. METHODS: IMT was performed daily and training load set at 50 % of the maximal inspiratory pressure. Participants were evaluated at pre-IMT, post 8 weeks of IMT and follow-up (3 months after the end of IMT). Breathing pattern (volume and time variables as well as percentages of contribution to tidal volume) was evaluated by Optoelectronic Plethysmography at rest. Friedman test was used to verify the differences between the three time-points (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Nineteen patients (54 ± 16 years old; 5 males) were evaluated at pre-IMT and post-IMT and fourteen were assessed at follow-up. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in any comparison for all evaluated breathing pattern variables at the three time-points. CONCLUSION: Resting breathing pattern was not significantly changed after 8 weeks of IMT in patients with advanced lung disease.