Comparison of three protocols for measuring the maximal respiratory pressures

Isabela Maria B Sclauser Pessoa, Cristina Martins Coelho, Liliane Patrícia de Souza Mendes, Dayane Montemezzo, Danielle Aparecida Gomes Pereira, Verônica Franco Parreira

Abstract


Introduction: To avoid the selection of submaximal efforts during the assessment of maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP and MEP), some reproducibility criteria have been suggested. Criteria that stand out are those proposed by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) and by the Brazilian Thoracic Association (BTA). However, no studies were found that compared these criteria or assessed the combination of both protocols. Objectives: To assess the pressure valuesselected and the number of maneuvers required to achieve maximum performance using the reproducibility criteria proposed by the ATS/ERS, the BTA and the present study. Materials and method: 113 healthy subjects (43.04 ± 16.94 years) from both genders were assessed according to the criteria proposed by the ATS/ERS, BTA and the present study. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis, followed by ANOVA for repeated measures and post hoc LSD or by Friedman test and post hoc Wilcoxon, accordingto the data distribution. Results: The criterion proposed by the present study resulted in a significantlyhigher number of maneuvers (MIP and MEP – median and 25%-75% interquartile range: 5[5-6], 4[3-5] and 3[3-4] for the present study criterion, BTA and ATS/ERS, respectively; p < 0.01) and higher pressure values (MIP – mean and 95% confidence interval: 103[91.43-103.72], 100[97.19-108.83] and 97.6[94.06-105.95]; MEP: median and 25%-75% interquartile range: 124.2[101.4-165.9], 123.3[95.4-153.8] and 118.4[95.5-152.7]; p < 0.05). Conclusion: The proposed criterion resulted in the selection of pressure values closer to the individual’s maximal capacity. This new criterion should be considered in future studies concerning MIP and MEP measurements.

Full Text:

PDF


DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-5150.028.001.AO03

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.