Jeferson George Ferreira

Diagnostic methods to assess inspiratory and expiratory muscle strength

Impairment of (inspiratory and expiratory) respiratory muscles is a common clinical finding, not only in patients with neuromuscular disease but also in patients with primary disease of the lung parenchyma or airways. Although such impairment is common, its recognition is usually delayed because its signs and symptoms are nonspecific and late. This delayed recognition, or even the lack thereof, occurs because the diagnostic tests used in the assessment of respiratory muscle strength are not widely known and available. There are various methods of assessing respiratory muscle strength during the inspiratory and expiratory phases. These methods are divided into two categories: volitional tests (which require patient understanding and cooperation); and non-volitional tests. Volitional tests, such as those that measure maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures, are the most commonly used because they are readily available. Non-volitional tests depend on magnetic stimulation of the phrenic nerve accompanied by the measurement of inspiratory mouth pressure, inspiratory esophageal pressure, or inspiratory transdiaphragmatic pressure. Another method that has come to be widely used is ultrasound imaging of the diaphragm. We believe that pulmonologists involved in the care of patients with respiratory diseases should be familiar with the tests used in order to assess respiratory muscle function.Therefore, the aim of the present article is to describe the advantages, disadvantages, procedures, and clinical applicability of the main tests used in the assessment of respiratory muscle strength.

Accuracy of Invasive and Noninvasive Parameters for Diagnosing Ventilatory Overassistance During Pressure Support Ventilation

Objective: Evaluate the accuracy of criteria for diagnosing pressure overassistance during pressure support ventilation. Design: Prospective clinical study. Setting: Medical-surgical ICU. Patients: Adults under mechanical ventilation for 48 hours or more using pressure support ventilation and without any sedative for 6 hours or more. Overassistance was defined as the occurrence of work of breathing less than 0.3 J/L or 10% or more of ineffective inspiratory effort. Two alternative overassistance definitions were based on the occurrence of inspiratory esophageal pressure-time product of less than 50 cm H2O s/min or esophageal occlusion pressure of less than 1.5 cm H2O. Interventions: The pressure support was set to 20 cm H2O and decreased in 3-cm H2O steps down to 2 cm H2O. Measurements and Main Results: The following parameters were evaluated to diagnose overassistance: respiratory rate, tidal volume, minute ventilation, peripheral arterial oxygen saturation, rapid shallow breathing index, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, change in esophageal pressure during inspiration, and esophageal and airway occlusion pressure. In all definitions, the respiratory rate had the greatest accuracy for diagnosing overassistance (receiver operating characteristic area = 0.92; 0.91 and 0.76 for work of breathing, pressure-time product and esophageal occlusion pressure in definition, respectively) and always with a cutoff of 17 incursions per minute. In all definitions, a respiratory rate of less than or equal to 12 confirmed overassistance (100% specificity), whereas a respiratory rate of greater than or equal to 30 excluded overassistance (100% sensitivity). Conclusion: A respiratory rate of 17 breaths/min is the parameter with the greatest accuracy for diagnosing overassistance. Respiratory rates of less than or equal to 12 or greater than or equal to 30 are useful clinical references to confirm or exclude pressure support overassistance.

Mechanisms of exercise limitation in patients with chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis

Small airway and interstitial pulmonary involvements are prominent in chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (cHP). However, their roles on exercise limitation and the relationship with functional lung tests have not been studied in detail. Our aim was to evaluate exercise performance and its determinants in cHP. We evaluated maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing performance in 28 cHP patients (forced vital capacity 57±17% pred) and 18 healthy controls during cycling. Patients had reduced exercise performance with lower peak oxygen production (16.6 (12.3–19.98) mL·kg−1·min−1 versus 25.1 (16.9–32.0), p=0.003), diminished breathing reserve (% maximal voluntary ventilation) (12 (6.4–34.8)% versus 41 (32.7–50.8)%, p<0.001) and hyperventilation (minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope 37±5 versus 31±4, p<0.001). All patients presented oxygen desaturation and augmented Borg dyspnoea scores (8 (5–10) versus 4 (1–7), p=0.004). The prevalence of dynamic hyperinflation was found in only 18% of patients. When comparing cHP patients with normal and low peak oxygen production (<84% pred, lower limit of normal), the latter exhibited a higher minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope (39±5.0 versus 34±3.6, p=0.004), lower tidal volume (0.84 (0.78–0.90) L versus 1.15 (0.97–1.67) L, p=0.002), and poorer physical functioning score on the Short form-36 health survey. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that reduced lung volumes (forced vital capacity %, total lung capacity % and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon dioxide %) were high predictors of poor exercise capacity. Reduced exercise capacity was prevalent in patients because of ventilatory limitation and not due to dynamic hyperinflation. Reduced lung volumes were reliable predictors of lower performance during exercise. Besides significant small airway involvement, reduced exercise capacity is due to ventilatory limitation and not due to dynamic hyperinflation in chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis http://ow.ly/Ou9230kSBQz

Thoracoabdominal asynchrony: Two methods in healthy, COPD, and interstitial lung disease patients

Background Thoracoabdominal asynchrony is the nonparallel motion of the ribcage and abdomen. It is estimated by using respiratory inductive plethysmography and, recently, using optoelectronic plethysmography; however the agreement of measurements between these 2 techniques is unknown. Therefore, the present study compared respiratory inductive plethysmography with optoelectronic plethysmography for measuring thoracoabdominal asynchrony to see if the measurements were similar or different. Methods 27 individuals (9 healthy subjects, 9 patients with interstitial lung disease, and 9 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease performed 2 cycle ergometer tests with respiratory inductive plethysmography or optoelectronic plethysmography in a random order. Thoracoabdominal asynchrony was evaluated at rest, and at 50% and 75% of maximal workload between the superior ribcage and abdomen using a phase angle. Results Thoracoabdominal asynchrony values were very similar in both approaches not only at rest but also with exercise, with no statistical difference. There was a good correlation between the methods and the Phase angle values were within the limits of agreement in the Bland-Altman analysis. Conclusion Thoracoabdominal asynchrony measured by optoelectronic plethysmography and respiratory inductive plethysmography results in similar values and has a satisfactory agreement at rest and even for different exercise intensities in these groups.