Rating Dyspnea and Pain: "No" is Not Always "Zero".

Nurses routinely assess pain in hospitalized patients; similar assessment of dyspnea is increasing. Most nurses start with a yes-no question when assessing pain or dyspnea; many record "no" as a zero rating, skipping the rating scale. We tested the hypothesis that recording "no" answers as "zero" fails to detect the symptoms that would have been detected with a rating scale. Nurses asked 60 patients yes-no questions about the presence of dyspnea and pain, then asked patients to rate the symptoms using a 0-10 scale. All "yes" answers were followed by a concordant rating (i.e., greater than zero). More than 25% of "no" answers were followed by a discordant rating (> zero). Documenting "no" as "zero" missed information potentially useful in care planning; patients who rate dyspnea above zero are at greater risk of adverse outcomes. This information can also provide opportunity to start a discussion with patients who may benefit from symptom management.

A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Speaking Dyspnea.

Purpose A conceptual framework is proposed to better understand the experience of people who have dyspnea (breathing discomfort) when speaking: its nature, its physiological mechanisms, and its impacts on their lives. Method The components of the framework are presented in their natural order. They are a Speaking Domain (Speaking Activities and Speaking Variables), a Physiological Domain (Speech Breathing Variables and Physiological Mechanisms), a Perceptual Domain (Dyspnea), a Symptom Impact Domain (Emotional Responses, Immediate Behavioral Responses, and Long-Term Behavioral Response), and a Life Impact Domain (Short-Term Impacts and Long-Term Impacts). Results We discuss literature that most directly supports these components and includes findings from healthy people and those with disorders in whom speaking dyspnea was either evoked or measured. Caveats are noted where information is limited and further study is needed. A case example is provided to illustrate how to apply the framework. Conclusions This framework provides a broader view of the elements that contribute to the experience of speaking dyspnea. It is meant to guide researchers, clinicians, instructors, caregivers, and those for whom speaking dyspnea is a daily or even a life-long challenge.

Air Hunger: A Primal Sensation and a Primary Element of Dyspnea.

The sensation that develops as a long breath hold continues is what this article is about. We term this sensation of an urge to breathe "air hunger." Air hunger, a primal sensation, alerts us to a failure to meet an urgent homeostatic need maintaining gas exchange. Anxiety, frustration, and fear evoked by air hunger motivate behavioral actions to address the failure. The unpleasantness and emotional consequences of air hunger make it the most debilitating component of clinical dyspnea, a symptom associated with respiratory, cardiovascular, and metabolic diseases. In most clinical populations studied, air hunger is the predominant form of dyspnea (colloquially, shortness of breath). Most experimental subjects can reliably quantify air hunger using rating scales, that is, there is a consistent relationship between stimulus and rating. Stimuli that increase air hunger include hypercapnia, hypoxia, exercise, and acidosis; tidal expansion of the lungs reduces air hunger. Thus, the defining experimental paradigm to evoke air hunger is to elevate the drive to breathe while mechanically restricting ventilation. Functional brain imaging studies have shown that air hunger activates the insular cortex (an integration center for perceptions related to homeostasis, including pain, food hunger, and thirst), as well as limbic structures involved with anxiety and fear. Although much has been learned about air hunger in the past few decades, much remains to be discovered, such as an accepted method to quantify air hunger in nonhuman animals, fundamental questions about neural mechanisms, and adequate and safe methods to mitigate air hunger in clinical situations. © 2021 American Physiological Society. Compr Physiol 11:1449-1483, 2021.

Speaking dyspnea in Parkinson's disease: Preliminary findings.

PURPOSE: To determine if people with Parkinson's disease (PD) experience dyspnea (breathing discomfort) during speaking. METHOD: The participants were 11 adults with PD and 22 healthy adults (11 young, 11 old). Participants were asked to recall experiences of breathing discomfort across different speaking contexts and provide ratings of those experiences (Retrospective ratings); then they rated the breathing discomfort experienced while performing speaking tasks that were designed to differ in respiratory demands (immediate Post-Speaking ratings). RESULTS: Participants with PD reported experiencing breathing discomfort during speaking significantly more frequently (approximately 60 % of the time) than did healthy participants (less than 20 % of the time). Retrospective ratings did not differ significantly from Post-Speaking ratings. Breathing discomfort was experienced by the fewest number of participants with PD for Conversation (two) and Extemporaneous Speaking (three) and by the greatest number for Extended Reading (ten) and Long Counting (nine), although the magnitude of the ratings generally reflected only "Slight" discomfort. Breathing discomfort was most frequently described as air hunger and breathing work, less frequently as mental effort, and very rarely as lung tightness. A few participants with PD reported experiencing emotions associated with their breathing discomfort and most reported using strategies to avoid breathing discomfort in their daily lives. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with PD are more apt to experience speaking dyspnea than healthy individuals, especially when speaking for extended periods or when using long breath groups. Such dyspnea may contribute to a tendency to avoid speaking situations and thereby impair quality of life.

'Scared to death' dyspnoea from the hospitalised patient's perspective.

Because dyspnoea is seldom experienced by healthy people, it can be hard for clinicians and researchers to comprehend the patient's experience. We collected patients' descriptions of dyspnoea in their own words during a parent study in which 156 hospitalised patients completed a quantitative multidimensional dyspnoea questionnaire. These volunteered comments describe the severity and wide range of experiences associated with dyspnoea and its impacts on a patients' life. They provide insights not conveyed by structured rating scales. We organised these comments into the most prominent themes, which included sensory experiences, emotional responses, self-blame and precipitating events. Patients often mentioned air hunger ('Not being able to get air is the worst thing that could ever happen to you.'), anxiety, and fear ('Scared. I thought the world was going to end, like in a box.'). Their value in patient care is suggested by one subject's comment: 'They should have doctors experience these symptoms, especially dyspnoea, so they understand what patients are going through.' Patients' own words can help to bridge this gap of understanding.

A Multidimensional Profile of Dyspnea in Hospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: Dyspnea is prevalent among hospitalized patients but little is known about the experience of dyspnea among inpatients. We sought to characterize the multiple sensations and associated emotions of dyspnea in patients admitted with dyspnea to a tertiary care hospital. METHODS: We selected patients who reported breathing discomfort of at least 4/10 on admission (10 = unbearable). Research staff recruited 156 patients within 24 hours of admission and evaluated daily patients' current and worst dyspnea with the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile; patients participated in the study 2.6 days on average. The Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile assesses overall breathing discomfort (A1), intensity of five sensory qualities of dyspnea, and 5 negative emotional responses to dyspnea. Patients were also asked to rate whether current levels of dyspnea were "acceptable." RESULTS: At the time of the first research interview, patients reported slight to moderate dyspnea (A1 median 4); however, most patients reported experiencing severe dyspnea in the 24 hours before the interview (A1 mean 7.8). A total of 54% of patients with dyspnea ≥4 on day 1 found the symptom unacceptable. The worst dyspnea each day in the prior 24 hours usually occurred at rest. Dyspnea declined but persisted through hospitalization for most patients. "Air hunger" was the dominant sensation, especially when dyspnea was strong (>4). Anxiety and frustration were the dominant emotions associated with dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS: This first multidimensional portrait of dyspnea in a general inpatient population characterizes the sensations and emotions dyspneic patients endure. The finding that air hunger is the dominant sensation of severe dyspnea has implications for design of laboratory models of these sensations and may have implications for targets of palliation of symptoms.

Aerosol furosemide for dyspnea: High-dose controlled delivery does not improve effectiveness.

Published studies have shown great variability in response when aerosolized furosemide has been tested as a palliative treatment for dyspnea. We hypothesized that a higher furosemide dose with controlled aerosol administration would produce consistent dyspnea relief. We optimized deposition by controlling inspiratory flow (300-500mL/s) and tidal volume (15% predicted vital capacity) while delivering 3.4µm aerosol from either saline or 80mg of furosemide. We induced dyspnea in healthy subjects by varying inspired PCO2 while restricting minute ventilation. Subjects rated "Breathing Discomfort" on a Visual Analog Scale (BDVAS, 100% Full Scale≡intolerable). At the PETCO2 producing 60% BDVAS pre-treatment, furosemide produced a clinically meaningful reduction of BDVAS (i.e., >20% FS) in 5/11 subjects; saline reduced dyspnea in 3/11 subjects; neither treatment worsened dyspnea in any subject. Furosemide and saline treatment effects were not statistically different. There were no significant adverse events. Higher furosemide dose and controlled delivery did not improve consistency of treatment effect compared with prior studies.

Aerosol furosemide for dyspnea: Controlled delivery does not improve effectiveness.

Aerosolized furosemide has been shown to relieve dyspnea; nevertheless, all published studies have shown great variability in response. This dyspnea relief is thought to result from the stimulation of slowly adapting pulmonary stretch receptors simulating larger tidal volume. We hypothesized that better control over aerosol administration would produce more consistent dyspnea relief; we used a clinical ventilator to control inspiratory flow and tidal volume. Twelve healthy volunteers inhaled furosemide (40mg) or placebo in a double blind, randomized, crossover study. Breathing Discomfort was induced by hypercapnia during constrained ventilation before and after treatment. Both treatments reduced breathing discomfort by 20% full scale. Effectiveness of aerosol furosemide treatment was weakly correlated with larger tidal volume. Response to inhaled furosemide was inversely correlated to furosemide blood level, suggesting that variation among subjects in the fate of deposited drug may determine effectiveness. We conclude that control of aerosol delivery conditions does not improve consistency of treatment effect; we cannot, however, rule out placebo effect.

Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile: an instrument for clinical and laboratory research.

There is growing awareness that dyspnoea, like pain, is a multidimensional experience, but measurement instruments have not kept pace. The Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile (MDP) assesses overall breathing discomfort, sensory qualities, and emotional responses in laboratory and clinical settings. Here we provide the MDP, review published evidence regarding its measurement properties and discuss its use and interpretation. The MDP assesses dyspnoea during a specific time or a particular activity (focus period) and is designed to examine individual items that are theoretically aligned with separate mechanisms. In contrast, other multidimensional dyspnoea scales assess recalled recent dyspnoea over a period of days using aggregate scores. Previous psychophysical and psychometric studies using the MDP show that: 1) subjects exposed to different laboratory stimuli could discriminate between air hunger and work/effort sensation, and found air hunger more unpleasant; 2) the MDP immediate unpleasantness scale (A1) was convergent with common dyspnoea scales; 3) in emergency department patients, two domains were distinguished (immediate perception, emotional response); 4) test-retest reliability over hours was high; 5) the instrument responded to opioid treatment of experimental dyspnoea and to clinical improvement; 6) convergent validity with common instruments was good; and 7) items responded differently from one another as predicted for multiple dimensions.

Dyspnea affective response: comparing COPD patients with healthy volunteers and laboratory model with activities of daily living.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory-induced dyspnea (breathing discomfort) in healthy subjects is widely used to study perceptual mechanisms, yet the relationship between laboratory-induced dyspnea in healthy volunteers and spontaneous dyspnea in patients with chronic lung disease is not well established. We compared affective responses to dyspnea 1) in COPD patients vs. healthy volunteers (HV) undergoing the same laboratory stimulus; 2) in COPD during laboratory dyspnea vs. during activities of daily living (ADL). METHODS: We induced moderate and high dyspnea levels in 13 COPD patients and 12 HV by increasing end-tidal CO2 (PETCO2) during restricted ventilation, evoking air hunger. We used the multidimensional dyspnea profile (MDP) to measure intensity of sensory qualities (e.g., air hunger (AH) and work/effort (W/E)) as well as immediate discomfort (A1) and secondary emotions (A2). Ten of the COPD subjects also completed the MDP outside the laboratory following dyspnea evoked by ADL. RESULTS: COPD patients and HV reported similar levels of immediate discomfort relative to sensory intensity. COPD patients and HV reported anxiety and frustration during laboratory-induced dyspnea; variation among individuals far outweighed the small differences between subject groups. COPD patients reported similar intensities of sensory qualities, discomfort, and emotions during ADL vs. during moderate laboratory dyspnea. Patients with COPD described limiting ADL to avoid greater dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, we found no evidence that a history of COPD alters the affective response to laboratory-induced dyspnea, and no difference in affective response between dyspnea evoked by this laboratory model and dyspnea evoked by ADL.

Using laboratory models to test treatment: morphine reduces dyspnea and hypercapnic ventilatory response.

RATIONALE: Opioids are commonly used to relieve dyspnea, but clinical data are mixed and practice varies widely. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the effect of morphine on dyspnea and ventilatory drive under well-controlled laboratory conditions. METHODS: Six healthy volunteers received morphine (0.07 mg/kg) and placebo intravenously on separate days (randomized, blinded). We measured two responses to a CO(2) stimulus: (1) perceptual response (breathing discomfort; described by subjects as "air hunger") induced by increasing partial pressure of end-tidal carbon dioxide (Pet(CO2)) during restricted ventilation, measured with a visual analog scale (range, "neutral" to "intolerable"); and (2) ventilatory response, measured in separate trials during unrestricted breathing. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We determined the Pet(CO2) that produced a 60% breathing discomfort rating in each subject before morphine (median, 8.5 mm Hg above resting Pet(CO2)). At the same Pet(CO2) after morphine administration, median breathing discomfort was reduced by 65% of its pretreatment value; P < 0.001. Ventilation fell 28% at the same Pet(CO2); P < 0.01. The effect of morphine on breathing discomfort was not significantly correlated with the effect on ventilatory response. Placebo had no effect. CONCLUSIONS: (1) A moderate morphine dose produced substantial relief of laboratory dyspnea, with a smaller reduction of ventilation. (2) In contrast to an earlier laboratory model of breathing effort, this laboratory model of air hunger established a highly significant treatment effect consistent in magnitude with clinical studies of opioids. Laboratory studies require fewer subjects and enable physiological measurements that are difficult to make in a clinical setting. Within-subject comparison of the response to carefully controlled laboratory stimuli can be an efficient means to optimize treatments before clinical trials.

Nature and evaluation of dyspnea in speaking and swallowing.

Dyspnea (breathing discomfort) is a serious and pervasive problem that can have a profound impact on quality of life. It can manifest in different qualities (air hunger, physical exertion, chest/lung tightness, and mental concentration, among others) and intensities (barely noticeable to intolerable) and can influence a person's emotional state (causing anxiety, fear, and frustration, among others). Dyspnea can make it difficult to perform daily activities, including speaking and swallowing. In fact, dyspnea can cause people to change the way they speak and swallow in their attempts to relieve their breathing discomfort; in extreme cases, it can even cause people to avoid speaking and eating/drinking. This article provides an overview of dyspnea in general, describes the effects of dyspnea on speaking and swallowing, includes data from two survey studies of speaking-related dyspnea and swallowing-related dyspnea, and outlines suggested protocols for evaluating dyspnea during speaking and swallowing.

The multiple dimensions of dyspnea: review and hypotheses.

Although dyspnea is a common and troubling symptom, our understanding of the neurophysiology of dyspnea is woefully incomplete. Most measurements of dyspnea treat it as a single entity. Although the multidimensional dyspnea concept has been mentioned for many decades, only recently has the concept been the subject of experimental tests. Emerging evidence has begun to favor the hypothesis that dyspnea comprises multiple dimensions or components that can be measured as different entities. Most recently, studies have begun to show that there is a separable 'affective dimension' (i.e. unpleasantness and emotional impact). Understanding of the multidimensional measurement of pain is far in advance of dyspnea, and has enabled progress in the neurophysiology of pain, including identification of separate neural structures subserving various elements of pain perception. We propose here a multidimensional model of dyspnea based on a state-of-the-art pain model, and review existing evidence in the light of this model.

The affective dimension of laboratory dyspnea: air hunger is more unpleasant than work/effort.

RATIONALE: It is hypothesized that the affective dimension of dyspnea (unpleasantness, emotional response) is not strictly dependent on the intensity of dyspnea. OBJECTIVES: We tested the hypothesis that the ratio of immediate unpleasantness (A(1)) to sensory intensity (SI) varies depending on the type of dyspnea. METHODS: Twelve healthy subjects experienced three stimuli: stimulus 1: maximal eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea against inspiratory resistance, requiring 15 times the work of resting breathing; stimulus 2: Pet(CO(2)) 6.1 mm Hg above resting with ventilation restricted to less than spontaneous breathing; stimulus 3: Pet(CO(2)) 7.7 mm Hg above resting with ventilation further restricted. After each trial, subjects rated SI, A(1), and qualities of dyspnea on the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile (MDP), a comprehensive instrument tested here for the first time. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Stimulus 1 was always limited by subjects failing to meet a higher ventilation target; none signaled severe discomfort. This evoked work and effort sensations, with relatively low unpleasantness (mean A(1)/SI = 0.64). Stimulus 2, titrated to produce dyspnea ratings similar to those subjects gave during stimulus 1, evoked air hunger and produced significantly greater unpleasantness (mean A(1)/SI = 0.95). Stimulus 3, increased until air hunger was intolerable, evoked the highest intensity and unpleasantness ratings and high unpleasantness ratio (mean A(1)/SI = 1.09). When asked which they would prefer to repeat, all subjects chose stimulus 1. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Maximal respiratory work is less unpleasant than moderately intense air hunger in this brief test; (2) unpleasantness of dyspnea can vary independently from perceived intensity, consistent with the prevailing model of pain; (3) separate dimensions of dyspnea can be measured with the MDP.

Speaking-related dyspnea in healthy adults.

PURPOSE: To reveal the qualities and intensity of speaking-related dyspnea in healthy adults under conditions of high ventilatory drive, in which the behavioral and metabolic control of breathing must compete. METHOD: Eleven adults read aloud while breathing different levels of inspired carbon dioxide (CO(2)). After the highest level, participants provided unguided descriptions of their experiences and then selected descriptors from a list. On a subsequent day, participants read aloud while breathing high CO(2) as before, then rated air hunger, physical exertion, and mental effort (with definitions provided). Recordings were made of ventilation (with respiratory magnetometers), end-tidal partial pressure of CO(2), transcutaneous PCO(2), oxygen saturation, noninvasive blood pressure, heart rate, and the speech signal. RESULTS: Unguided descriptions were found to reflect the qualities of air hunger, physical exertion (work), mental effort, and speech-related observations. As CO(2) stimulus strength increased, participants experienced increased perception of air hunger, physical exertion, and mental effort. Simultaneous increases were observed in ventilation, tidal volume, end-inspiratory and end-expiratory volumes, expiratory flow during speaking, nonlinguistic junctures, and nonspeech expirations. CONCLUSION: Two qualities of speaking-related dyspnea--air hunger and physical exertion--are the same as those reported for many other types of nonspeech dyspnea conditions and, therefore, may share the same physiological mechanisms. The mental effort quality associated with speaking-related dyspnea may reflect a conscious drive to balance speech requirements and ventilatory demands. These findings have implications for developing better ways to evaluate and manage clients with respiratory-based speech problems.

Effect of inhaled furosemide on air hunger induced in healthy humans.

Recent evidence suggests that inhaled furosemide relieves dyspnoea in patients and in normal subjects made dyspnoeic by external resistive loads combined with added dead-space. Furosemide sensitizes lung inflation receptors in rats, and lung inflation reduces air hunger in humans. We therefore hypothesised that inhaled furosemide acts on the air hunger component of dyspnoea. Ten subjects inhaled aerosolized furosemide (40 mg) or placebo in randomised, double blind, crossover experiments. Air hunger was induced by hypercapnia (50+/-2 mmHg) during constrained ventilation (8+/-0.9 L/min) before and after treatment, and rated by subjects using a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Subjects described a sensation of air hunger with little or no work/effort of breathing. Hypercapnia generated less air hunger in the first trial at 23+/-3 min after start of furosemide treatment (58+/-11% to 39+/-14% full scale); the effect varied substantially among subjects. The mean treatment effect, accounting for placebo, was 13% of full scale (P=0.052). We conclude that 40 mg of inhaled furosemide partially relieves air hunger within 1h and is accompanied by substantial diuresis.

Measurement of dyspnea: word labeled visual analog scale vs. verbal ordinal scale.

We previously used a verbal ordinal rating scale to measure dyspnea. That scale was easy for subjects to use and the words provided consistency in ratings. We have recently developed a word labeled visual analog scale (LVAS) with labels placed by the subjects, retaining the advantages of a verbal scale while offering a continuous scale that generates parametric data. In a retrospective meta-analysis of data from 43 subjects, individuals differed little in their placement of words on the 100 mm LVAS (mean+/-S.D. for slight=20+/-2.5 mm, moderate=50+/-5 mm and severe=80+/-6 mm) and ratings were distributed uniformly along the scale. A significant stimulus-response correlation was obtained for both the LVAS (r(2)=0.98) and for the verbal ordinal scale (Spearman r=0.94). The resolution of the two scales differed only slightly. With meaningful verbal anchors, well-defined end-points, and clear instructions about the specific sensation to be rated, both scales provide valid measures of dyspnea.