RESUMEN
Background: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has an additional important effect that does not occur with medicinal therapy: a reduction in the work of breathing. Understanding the mechanical effects of these therapies is of considerable importance and can affect clinical decision making. Objective: Evaluate the effects of NIV compared to albuterol on lung function and respiratory mechanics in asthmatic adolescents and young adults after bronchoprovocation and determine the effects of a hypertonic saline solution on lung function respiratory mechanics. Methods: A randomized crossover study was conducted involving individuals with a diagnosis of asthma. Evaluations were performed with optoelectronic plethysmography (OEP) and spirometry at baseline, after the bronchial provocation test with 4.5% saline solution and after the intervention. The order of the procedures (bilevel NIV and albuterol) was randomized, with the participants crossing over to the other treatment after a 1-week washout period. Inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) 12 and expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP) 8 cmH2O were set for 10 minutes and the dose of albuterol was 400 µg. Results: Forty individuals were included in the study (mean age: 21.6 ± 4 years; 24 females). The recovery of FEV1% was 87.9% (80.8 ± 35 to 101.1 ± 46.1, p < 0.05) after NIV and 95.9% (84.4 ± 42.4 to 110.3 ± 44.3, p < 0.05) after albuterol. Inspiratory capacity (IC; L) reduced 12% to 15% after bronchoprovocation, with 100% recovery using NIV (2.1 ± 0.7 to 2.42.4 ± 0.6, p < 0.05) and 107.6% using albuterol (2.2 ± 0.8 to 2.8 ± 1.1, p < 0.05). Regarding OEP variables, tidal volume had greater participation in the thoracic compartment. NIV led to an increase in minute volume and a return to the baseline value, which did not occur with albuterol. Conclusion: NIV recovered FEV1 and improves signs of hyperinflation by improving IC. Bronchoprovocation with a hypertonic solution reduced FEV1 by 20% and reduced IC. NIV led to a faster recovery of minute volume and reduced the contraction velocity of the muscles of the rib cage compared to albuterol, although the effects on lung function were less intense.
