Relationship of static and dynamic inspiratory muscle strength
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt2023331Keywords:
Maximal Inspiratory Pressure, Respiratory MuscleAbstract
Background: the non-invasive evaluation of the inspiratory muscles strength makes it possible to detect their weakness globally. The use of digital or aneroid manometers to determine the inspiratory force can be taken by a static technique, known as pymometry, obtaining the maximum inspiratory pressure. However, equipment such as PowerBreathe is also used to obtain the strength index, which is considered a dynamic technique.
Methods: the present work is a cross-sectional cohort study, focused on analyzing the inspiratory muscle force in a static and dynamic way in healthy subjects, using a non-clinical digital manometer Ht - 18909 compared with a PowerBreathe equipment. The study was conducted in 23 healthy volunteer patients with a mean age of 19 years.
Results: Inspiratory force measurements for both instruments reached a mean of 57,5 cmH2O and 55,3 cmH2O (SD 16,38 – 14,91) when taken with manometry and PowerBreathe equipment respectively, the correlation by calculating of the ICC with a reliability of 95 %, was 0,87, having a high level of agreement or similarity between the measures.
Conclusions: It was concluded that there are no significant differences when measuring the inspiratory force when using both devices that estimate the force statically and dynamically
References
1. American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society. ATS/ERS Statement on respiratory muscle testing. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2002; 166(4):518–624. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.166.4.518
2. Gayraud J, Ramonatxo M, Rivier F, Humberclaude V, Petrof B, Matecki S. Ventilatory parameters and maximal respiratory pressure changes with age in Duchenne muscular dystrophy patients. Pediatric Pulmonology 2010; 45(6):552–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.21204
3. Baptistella AR, Sarmento FJ, da Silva KR, Baptistella SF, Taglietti M, Zuquello RÁ, Nunes Filho JR. Predictive factors of weaning from mechanical ventilation and extubation outcome: A systematic review. Journal of Critical Care 2018; 48:56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.08.023
4. Silveira BMF, Pereira MCB, Cardoso DR, Ribeiro-Samora GA, Martins HR, Parreira VF. New method for evaluating maximal respiratory pressures: Concurrent validity, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability. Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy 2021; 25(6):741–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2021.04.012
5. Minahan C, Sheehan B, Doutreband R, Kirkwood T, Reeves D, Cross T . Repeated-sprint cycling does not induce respiratory muscle fatigue in active adults: measurements from the powerbreathe® inspiratory muscle trainer. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine 2015; 14(1):233.
6. Lee KB, Kim MK, Jeong JR, Lee WH. Reliability of an Electronic Inspiratory Loading Device for Assessing Pulmonary Function in Post-Stroke Patients. Medical science monitor: international medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research 2016; 22:191–196. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.895573
7. Areias GS, Santiago LR, Teixeira, D. S., & Reis, M. S. (2020). Concurrent Validity of the Static and Dynamic Measures of Inspiratory Muscle Strength: Comparison between Maximal Inspiratory Pressure and S-Index. Brazilian journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, 35(4):459–464. https://doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2019-0269
8. Cook CD, Mead J, Orzalesi MM. Static Volume-Pressure Characteristics Of The Respiratory System During Maximal Efforts. Journal of Applied Physiology 1964; 19:1016–1022. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1964.19.5.1016
9. Torres-Castro R, Sepúlveda-Cáceres N, Garrido-Baquedano R, Barros-Poblete M, Otto-Yáñez M, Vasconcello L, Vera-Uribe R, Puppo H, Fregonezi G. Agreement between clinical and non-clinical digital manometer for assessing maximal respiratory pressures in healthy subjects. PloS One 2019; 14(10):e0224357. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224357
10. Areias GS, Santiago LR, Teixeira DS, Reis MS. Concurrent Validity of the Static and Dynamic Measures of Inspiratory Muscle Strength: Comparison between Maximal Inspiratory Pressure and S-Index. Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2020, 35(4):459–464. https://doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2019-0269
11. da Silva FMF, Cipriano G, Lima ACGB, Andrade JML, Nakano EY, Chiappa GR, Cahalin LP, Cipriano GFB. Maximal Dynamic Inspiratory Pressure Evaluation in Heart Failure: A Comprehensive Reliability and Agreement Study. Physical Therapy 2020; 100(12):2246–2253. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa165
12. Black LF, Hyatt RE. Maximal respiratory pressures: normal values and relationship to age and sex. The American Review of Respiratory Disease 1969; 99(5):696–702. https://doi.org/10.1164/arrd.1969.99.5.696
13. Sclauser Pessoa IM, Franco Parreira V, Fregonezi GA, Sheel AW, Chung F, Reid WD. Reference values for maximal inspiratory pressure: a systematic review. Canadian Respiratory Journal 2014, 21(1):43–50. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/982374
14. Rodrigues A, Da Silva ML, Berton DC, Cipriano G, Jr Pitta F, O'Donnell DE, Neder JA. Maximal Inspiratory Pressure: Does the Choice of Reference Values Actually Matter? Chest 2017; 152(1):32–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.11.045
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Robinson Adrián Rumiguano Jiménez, Stalin Javier Caiza Lema, Katherine Pamela Valencia Pasquel, Geovanna Maribel Herrera Herrera, Victoria Estefania Espin Pastor, María Gabriela Romero Rodríguez (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
