No abstract

DB cannot be simply defined. For practical purposes DB is probably best characterised as a multi-dimensional construct with at least 3 dimensions, biochemical, biomechanical and breathing related symptoms. Comprehensive evaluation of breathing dysfunction should include measures of breathing symptoms, breathing pattern, resting CO(2) and also include functional measures such a breath holding time and response of breathing to physical and psychological challenges including stress testing with CO(2) monitoring.

Altered breathing pattern is an aspect of dysfunctional breathing but few standardised techniques exist to evaluate it. This study investigates a technique for evaluating and quantifying breathing pattern, called the Manual Assessment of Respiratory Motion (MARM) and compares it to measures performed with Respiratory Induction Plethysmography (RIP). About 12 subjects altered their breathing and posture while 2 examiners assessed their breathing using the MARM. Simultaneous measurements with RIP were taken. Inter-examiner agreement and agreement between MARM and RIP were assessed. The ability of the measurement methods to differentiate between diverse breathing and postural patterns was compared. High levels of agreement between examiners were found with the MARM for measures of the upper rib cage relative to lower rib cage/abdomen motion during breathing but not for measures of volume. The measures of upper rib cage dominance during breathing correlated with similar measures obtained from RIP. Both RIP and MARM measures methods were able to differentiate between abdominal and thoracic breathing patterns, but only MARM was able to differentiate between breathing changes occurring as result of slumped versus erect sitting posture. This study suggests that the MARM is a reliable clinical tool for assessing breathing pattern.

Mean NQ scores were elevated and mean MARM values for thoracic breathing were also elevated. There was a small correlation pre-treatment between MARM and NQ (r=0.26, p<0.05), but classification of subjects as normal/abnormal on both measurements agreed in 74% (p < 0.001) of patients. From the sub scores of NQ only the respiratory or 'dyspnea' items correlated with the MARM values. Dyspnea was only elevated for subjects with abnormal MARM. After treatment, both MARM and NQ returned to normal values (p< 0.0001). Changes in NQ were largest for subjects with abnormal MARM pre-treatment. There was a large interaction between the change in the NQ sub score dyspnea and initial MARM values. (p<0.001).

No abstract