Maximal respiratory pressures: measurements at functional residual capacity in individuals with different health conditions using a digital manometer

Página do item simplificado
dc.creatorBruna M. F. Silveira
dc.creatorHenrique R. Martins
dc.creatorGiane A. Ribeiro-Samora
dc.creatorLuciano F. Oliveira
dc.creatorEliane Viana Mancuzo
dc.creatorMarcelo Velloso
dc.creatorVerônica F. Parreira
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-27T13:29:35Z
dc.date.accessioned2025-09-08T23:44:20Z
dc.date.available2025-05-27T13:29:35Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.bjpt.2023.100529
dc.identifier.issn14133555
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1843/82508
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais
dc.relation.ispartofBrazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
dc.rightsAcesso Restrito
dc.subjectDoenças pulmonaresDeCS
dc.subject.otherDyspnea; Functional residual capacity; Heart diseases; Lung diseases; Physical therapy; Respiratory muscles.
dc.titleMaximal respiratory pressures: measurements at functional residual capacity in individuals with different health conditions using a digital manometer
dc.typeArtigo de periódico
local.citation.spage100529
local.citation.volume12
local.description.resumoBackground: Measuring maximal respiratory pressure is a widely used method of investigating the strength of inspiratory and expiratory muscles. Objectives: To compare inspiratory pressures obtained at functional residual capacity (FRC) with measures at residual volume (RV), and expiratory pressures obtained at FRC with measures at total lung capacity (TLC) in individuals with different health conditions: post-COVID-19, COPD, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), heart failure (CHF), and stroke; and to compare the mean differences between measurements at FRC and RV/TLC among the groups. Methods: Inspiratory and expiratory pressures were obtained randomly at different lung volumes. Mixed factorial analysis of covariance with repeated measures was used to compare measurements at different lung volumes within and among groups. Results: Seventy-five individuals were included in the final analyses (15 individuals with each health condition). Maximal inspiratory pressures at FRC were lower than RV [mean difference (95% CI): 11.3 (5.8, 16.8); 8.4 (2.3, 14.5); 11.1 (5.5, 16.7); 12.8 (7.1, 18.4); 8.0 (2.6, 13.4) for COVID-19, COPD, IPF, CHF, and stroke, respectively] and maximal expiratory pressures at FRC were lower than TLC [mean difference (95% CI): 51.9 (37.4, 55.5); 60.9 (44.2, 77.7); 62.9 (48.1, 77.8); 58.0 (43.9, 73.8); 57.2 (42.9, 71.6) for COVID-19, COPD, IPF, CHF, and stroke, respectively]. All mean differences were similar among groups. Conclusion: Although inspiratory and expiratory pressures at FRC were lower than measures obtained at RV/TLC for the five groups of health conditions, the mean differences between measurements at different lung volumes were similar among groups, which raises the discussion about the influence of the viscoelastic properties of the lungs on maximal respiratory pressure.
local.publisher.countryBrasil
local.publisher.departmentEEF - DEPARTAMENTO DE FISIOTERAPIA
local.publisher.departmentENG - DEPARTAMENTO DE ENGENHARIA ELÉTRICA
local.publisher.departmentENG - DEPARTAMENTO DE ENGENHARIA ELETRÔNICA
local.publisher.departmentMED - DEPARTAMENTO DE CLÍNICA MÉDICA
local.publisher.initialsUFMG
local.url.externahttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1413355523000503?via%3Dihub

Arquivos

Licença do pacote

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
Imagem de Miniatura
Nome:
License.txt
Tamanho:
1.99 KB
Formato:
Plain Text
Descrição:
Baixar

Coleções

Artigo de Periódico

Logo UFMG