Reproducibility of inspiratory muscle endurance testing using PowerBreathe for COPD patients. (10th April 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Basso‐Vanelli, Renata P.; Di Lorenzo, Valéria A.P.; Ramalho, Mariane; Labadessa, Ivana G.; Regueiro, Eloisa M.G.; Jamami, Mauricio; Costa, Dirceu
• Is Part Of: Physiotherapy research international. Volume 23:Number 1(2018)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2017-04-10
• Subjects: COPD -- muscle endurance test -- respiratory muscles -- test–retest reproducibility; Physical therapy -- Periodicals; Physical Therapy Modalities -- Periodicals; Physiothérapie -- Périodiques; 615.82
• DOI: 10.1002/pri.1687
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1358-2267

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Assessing the strength and endurance of respiratory muscles is fundamental for characterizing respiratory muscle dysfunction. Although a variety of tests are used to evaluate respiratory muscle endurance, not all of them are applicable in clinical practice. Assessments can be made using a practical device called PowerBreathe®, but its reproducibility has not been tested in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Aim: To verify the reproducibility of the inspiratory muscle endurance test using a manometer and PowerBreathe® in COPD patients. Methods: A cross‐sectional study was used. In total, 19 moderate–severe COPD patients, male and female, aged 50 to 80 years took part in the research. This evaluation consisted of 2 tests: an incremental test and a constant one held on the same day and repeated after 48 hr. The incremental test started with 10‐cm H2 O, adding 10‐cm H2 O every 2 min and taking 1 min of rest before increasing the load. The highest load that could be sustained for at least 1 min was considered the sustained maximum inspiratory pressure (SMIP) value. The constant test was performed at an intensity of 80% of the SMIP and the maximum time limit was 30 min. Results: In the incremental test, there was a significant increase in the SMIP compared to the test–retest (61 ± 24/64.7 ± 23.8; p = .015); the value of the relative reproducibility was 0.96, the standard error of the absolute measurement was 4.7 (95% confidence interval 9.2), and the minimum detectable difference was 10.9. In the Bland–Altman analysis, the mean error was 4.2 (confidence interval −7.6 to 16.1). The constant test was not reproducible. Conclusion: It was observed that the incremental test was reproducible to evaluate inspiratory muscle endurance in COPD patients. Furthermore, 2 tests needed to be carried out due to the learning effect.