Breathing pattern and muscle activity using different inspiratory resistance devices in children with mouth breathing syndrome.

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the acute effects of different inspiratory resistance devices and intensity of loads via nasal airway on the breathing pattern and activity of respiratory muscles in children with mouth breathing syndrome (MBS). Methods: Children with MBS were randomised into two groups based on inspiratory load intensity (20% and 40% of the maximal inspiratory pressure). These subjects were assessed during quiet breathing, breathing against inspiratory load via nasal airway and recovery. The measurements were repeated using two different devices (pressure threshold and flow resistance). Chest wall volumes and respiratory muscle activity were evaluated by optoelectronic plethysmography and surface electromyography, respectively. Results: During the application of inspiratory load, there was a significant reduction in respiratory rate (p<0.04) and an increase in inspiratory time (p<0.02), total time of respiratory cycle (p<0.02), minute ventilation (p<0.03), tidal volume (p<0.01) and scalene and sternocleidomastoid muscles activity (root mean square values, p<0.01) when compared to quiet spontaneous breathing and recovery, regardless of load level or device applied. The application of inspiratory load using the flow resistance device showed an increase in the tidal volume (p<0.02) and end-inspiratory volume (p<0.02). Conclusion: For both devices, the addition of inspiratory loads using a nasal interface had a positive effect on the breathing pattern. However, the flow resistance device was more effective in generating volume and, therefore, has advantages compared to pressure threshold.

Effects of diaphragmatic control on multiparametric analysis of the sniff nasal inspiratory pressure test and inspiratory muscle activity in healthy subjects.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the influence of diaphragmatic activation control (diaphC) on the relaxation rate, contractile properties and electrical activity of the inspiratory muscles of healthy subjects. Assessments were performed non-invasively using the sniff inspiratory pressure test (SNIP) and surface electromyography, respectively. METHODS: Twenty-two subjects (10 men and 12 women) performed 10 sniff maneuvers in two different days: with and without diaphC instructions. For the SNIP test with diaphC, the subjects were instructed to perform intense activation of the diaphragm. The tests with the best SNIP values were used for analysis. RESULTS: The maneuver with diaphC when compared to the maneuver without diaphC exhibited significant lower values for: SNIP (p <0.01), maximum relaxation rate (MRR) (p <0.01), maximum rate of pressure development (MRPD) (p <0.01), contraction times (CT) (p = 0.02) and electrical activity of the sternocleidomastoid (SCM) (p <0.01), scalene (SCL) (p = 0.01) and intercostal (CI) (p = 0.03) muscles. In addition, the decay constant (tau, τ) and relaxation time (½ RT) did not present any changes. CONCLUSION: The diaphragmatic control performed during the SNIP test influences the inspiratory pressure and the contractile properties of inspiratory muscles. This occurs due to changes in the pattern of muscle recruitment, which change force velocity characteristics of the test. Thus, instruction on diaphC should be encouraged for better performance of the SNIP test and for evaluation targeting the diaphragm muscle activity.

Effects of Inspiratory Load on Chest Wall Kinematics, Breathing Pattern, and Respiratory Muscle Activity of Mouth-Breathing Children.

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate the acute effects of different inspiratory loads using nasal and oral interfaces on the volumes of the chest wall and its compartments, breathing pattern, and respiratory muscle activation in children with mouth-breathing syndrome. METHODS: Children with mouth-breathing syndrome were randomized into 2 groups, one with an inspiratory load intensity 20% of maximum inspiratory pressure (n = 14), and the other with an inspiratory load intensity 40% of maximum inspiratory pressure (n = 15). The chest wall volumes and electromyography of sternocleidomastoid, rectus abdominis, scalene, and internal intercostal muscles were used to analyze respiration against the 2 load intensities and using 2 interfaces (ie, nasal and oral). RESULTS: A total of 72 children with mouth-breathing syndrome were recruited, and 29 were evaluated in this study. The use of inspiratory load promoted improvement in the components of the breathing pattern: breathing frequency (P = .039), inspiratory time (P = .03), and total respiratory time (P = .043); and increases in tidal volume (P < .001), end-inspiratory volume (P < .001), and electrical activity of scalene muscles and sternocleidomastoid muscles (P < .001) when compared to quiet breathing. The load imposed via a nasal interface versus an oral interface provided an increase in tidal volume (P = .030), end-inspiratory volume (P = .02), and electrical activity of scalene muscles (P < .001) and sternocleidomastoid muscles (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The use of acute inspiratory loads improved the breathing pattern and increased lung volume and electrical activity of inspiratory muscles. This work brings new perspective to the investigation of using nasal interfaces during the application of inspiratory loads. The nasal interface was more effective compared to the oral interface commonly used in clinical practice.

Acute Effects of Inspiratory Loads and Interfaces on Breathing Pattern and Activity of Respiratory Muscles in Healthy Subjects.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the acute effects of different inspiratory loads and different interfaces on the breathing pattern and activity of the respiratory muscles. METHODS: Twenty healthy adults were recruited and assigned to two groups (20 and 40% of the Maximal Inspiratory Pressure) by way of randomized crossover allocation. Subjects were evaluated during quiet breathing, breathing against inspiratory load, and recovery. The measurements were repeated using two different interfaces (nasal and oral). Chest wall volumes and respiratory muscle activity were assessed with optoelectronic plethysmography and surface electromyography, respectively. RESULTS: During the application of inspiratory load, significant changes were observed in the respiratory rate (p < 0.04), inspiratory time (p < 0.02), minute ventilation (p < 0.04), tidal volume (p < 0.01), end-inspiratory volume (p < 0.04), end-expiratory volume (p < 0.03), and in the activity of the scalene, sternocleiomastoid, and parasternal portion of the intercostal muscles (RMS values, p < 0.01) when compared to quiet breathing, regardless of the load level or the interface applied. Inspiratory load application yielded significant differences between using nasal and oral interfaces with an increase in the tidal volume (p < 0.01), end-inspiratory volume (p < 0.01), and electrical activity of the scalene and sternocleiomastoid muscles (p < 0.01) seen with using the nasal interface. CONCLUSION: The addition of an inspiratory load has a significant effect on the breathing pattern and respiratory muscle electrical activity, and the effects are greater when the nasal interface is applied.

Effects of diaphragmatic control on the assessment of sniff nasal inspiratory pressure and maximum relaxation rate.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of diaphragmatic activation control (diaphC) on Sniff Nasal-Inspiratory Pressure (SNIP) and Maximum Relaxation Rate of inspiratory muscles (MRR) in healthy subjects. METHOD: Twenty subjects (9 male; age: 23 (SD=2.9) years; BMI: 23.8 (SD=3) kg/m²; FEV1/FVC: 0.9 (SD=0.1)] performed 5 sniff maneuvers in two different moments: with or without instruction on diaphC. Before the first maneuver, a brief explanation was given to the subjects on how to perform the sniff test. For sniff test with diaphC, subjects were instructed to perform intense diaphragm activation. The best SNIP and MRR values were used for analysis. MRR was calculated as the ratio of first derivative of pressure over time (dP/dtmax) and were normalized by dividing it by peak pressure (SNIP) from the same maneuver. RESULTS: SNIP values were significantly different in maneuvers with and without diaphC [without diaphC: -100 (SD=27.1) cmH2O/ with diaphC: -72.8 (SD=22.3) cmH2O; p<0.0001], normalized MRR values were not statistically different [without diaphC: -9.7 (SD=2.6); with diaphC: -8.9 (SD=1.5); p=0.19]. Without diaphC, 40% of the sample did not reach the appropriate sniff criteria found in the literature. CONCLUSION: Diaphragmatic control performed during SNIP test influences obtained inspiratory pressure, being lower when diaphC is performed. However, there was no influence on normalized MRR.

Effects of diaphragmatic control on the assessment of sniff nasal inspiratory pressure and maximum relaxation rate

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of diaphragmatic activation control (diaphC) on Sniff Nasal-Inspiratory Pressure (SNIP) and Maximum Relaxation Rate of inspiratory muscles (MRR) in healthy subjects. METHOD: Twenty subjects (9 male; age: 23 (SD=2.9) years; BMI: 23.8 (SD=3) kg/m2; FEV1/FVC: 0.9 (SD=0.1)] performed 5 sniff maneuvers in two different moments: with or without instruction on diaphC. Before the first maneuver, a brief explanation was given to the subjects on how to perform the sniff test. For sniff test with diaphC, subjects were instructed to perform intense diaphragm activation. The best SNIP and MRR values were used for analysis. MRR was calculated as the ratio of first derivative of pressure over time (dP/dtmax) and were normalized by dividing it by peak pressure (SNIP) from the same maneuver. RESULTS: SNIP values were significantly different in maneuvers with and without diaphC [without diaphC: -100 (SD=27.1) cmH2O/ with diaphC: -72.8 (SD=22.3) cmH2O; p<0.0001], normalized MRR values were not statistically different [without diaphC: -9.7 (SD=2.6); with diaphC: -8.9 (SD=1.5); p=0.19]. Without diaphC, 40% of the sample did not reach the appropriate sniff criteria found in the literature. CONCLUSION: Diaphragmatic control performed during SNIP test influences obtained inspiratory pressure, being lower when diaphC is performed. However, there was no influence on normalized MRR.