No abstract

Background: The maximum static respiratory pressures, namely the maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) and maximum expiratory pressure (MEP), reflect the strength of the respiratory muscles. These measures are simple, non-invasive, and have established diagnostic and prognostic value. This study is the first to examine the maximum respiratory pressures within the Brazilian population according to the recommendations proposed by the American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) and the Brazilian Thoracic Association (SBPT). Objective:To establish reference equations, mean values, and lower limits of normality for MIP and MEP for each age group and sex, as recommended by the ATS/ERS and SBPT. Method:We recruited 134 Brazilians living in Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil, aged 20-89 years, with a normal pulmonary function test and a body mass index within the normal range. We used a digital manometer that operationalized the variable maximum average pressure (MIP/MEP). At least five tests were performed for both MIP and MEP to take into account a possible learning effect. Results:We evaluated 74 women and 60 men. The equations were as follows: MIP=63.27-0.55 (age)+17.96 (gender)+0.58 (weight), r2 of 34% and MEP= - 61.41+2.29 (age) - 0.03(age2)+33.72 (gender)+1.40 (waist), r2 of 49%. Conclusion: In clinical practice, these equations could be used to calculate the predicted values of MIP and MEP for the Brazilian population.

BACKGROUND: The measurement of maximal respiratory pressure (MRP) is a procedure widely used in clinical practice to evaluate respiratory muscle strength through the maximal inspiratory pressure (P Imax ) and maximal expiratory pressure (P Emax ). Its clinical applications include diagnostic procedures and evaluating responses to interventions. However, there is great variability in the equipment and measurement procedures. Understanding the impacts of the characteristics of different interfaces can augment the repeatability of this method and help to establish widely applicable predictive equations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of 4 different interfaces on a subject's capacity to generate MRP and the impact of these interfaces on the repeatability of these measurements. METHODS: Fifty healthy subjects (mean ؎ SD age 26.36 ؎ 4.89 y) with normal spirometry were evaluated. MRP was measured by a digital manometer connected to 4 interfaces using different combinations of mouthpieces and tubes. The following variables were analyzed: maximum mean pressure, peak pressure, plateau pressure, and plateau variation. Analysis of variance for repeated measures or a Friedman test was used to compare the 4 interfaces, with P < .008 after Bonferroni adjustment considered significant. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the 4 interfaces with respect to maximum mean pressure, peak pressure, plateau pressure, or plateau variation for P Imax (P > .49) or P Emax (P > .11), nor did the number of tests performed to fulfill the criteria of repeatability for P Imax (P ‫؍‬ .69) or P Emax (P ‫؍‬ .47) differ among the 4 interfaces. CONCLUSIONS: P Imax and P Emax values seem not to be influenced by the different interfaces studied, suggesting that patient comfort and availability of interfaces can be considered.

No abstract

A mensuração das pressões respiratórias máximas - método de avaliação das condições de força dos músculos respiratórios - é um teste voluntário e esforço-dependente, com aplicações clínicas de ordem diagnóstica e terapêutica. Há uma grande variedade de equipamentos e interfaces para sua execução, o que acarreta uma relativa ausência de padronização. O objetivo deste estudo foi identificar os diferentes equipamentos, procedimentos e forma de interpretar a mensuração das pressões respiratórias máximas entre fisioterapeutas brasileiros. Dezenove fisioterapeutas respiratórios, de 13 diferentes instituições, situadas em três regiões do país, responderam a um questionário sobre esses aspectos. Os resultados mostram que prevaleceu o uso de manovacuômetro analógico (60%), com tubo de silicone (60%) e interface do tipo bocal tubular (53,4%), contendo orifício de fuga de 1 a 2 mm de diâmetro (86,6%), associado ao uso de clipe nasal (100%). Na mensuração, foi observado um número mínimo de três testes aceitáveis e reprodutíveis (80%) e, para a análise dos valores encontrados, todos usam valores de referência ou equações preditivas. Os dados sugerem que existe uma relativa uniformidade em relação à mensuração das pressões respiratórias máximas entre fisioterapeutas brasileiros.