Renata Pletsch

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.

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.