Reprodutibilidade teste-reteste e validade concorrente de manovacuômetro digital

A manovacuometria é um teste simples, rápido e não invasivo que mensura as pressões respiratórias máximas (PRM). Diretrizes recomendam o uso do manovacuômetro digital devido à sua alta precisão. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a reprodutibilidade teste-reteste e a validade concorrente de um manovacuômetro digital na mensuração das pressões inspiratórias e expiratórias máximas (PImáx e PEmáx) e da pressão inspiratória nasal durante o fungar (SNIP). Foram avaliados 30 indivíduos saudáveis (20-30 anos) utilizando os manovacuômetros digitais UFMG e MicroRPM(r) (Micro Medical, UK). Para avaliar a reprodutibilidade, foi utilizado o Coeficiente de Correlação Intraclasse (CCI) e teste t de student para amostras dependentes. Para análise da validade foram utilizados: a correlação de Pearson, o teste t de student para amostras dependentes, a análise de regressão linear e o método Bland-Altman. O nível de significância considerado foi de 5% (p;0,05). A correlação entre os valores observados nos dois instrumentos foi de alta magnitude para todas as variáveis (0,82 a 0,85); não houve diferença significativa entre os valores médios obtidos nos dois instrumentos (p>;0,05); foi observada forte associação entre as medidas das PRM obtidas pelos dois métodos e a análise de Bland-Altman não demonstrou superestimação ou subestimação sistemática das PRM e do SNIP. Em conclusão, os resultados sugerem que o manovacuômetro UFMG é confiável e válido para avaliação das PRM e SNIP em indivíduos saudáveis.The manovacuometer is a simple, quick and non-invasive test which measures the maximal respiratory pressures (MRS). Guidelines recommend the use of a digital manovacuometer due to its high accuracy. The purpose of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of a digital manovacuometer in measuring the maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP/MEP) and nasal inspiratory pressure while sniffing (SNIP). A total of 30 healthy subjects were assessed (20-30 years old) using the UFMG and MicroRPM(r) (Micro Medical, UK) digital manovacuometers. To assess reliability, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Student's t test it was used for dependent samples. For the validity assessment, the following were used: Pearson correlation, Student's t test for dependent samples, linear regression and the Bland-Altman method. The level of significance was set at 5% (p;0.05); the correlation between observed values from the two instruments was of high magnitude for all variables (0.82 to 0.85); no significant difference was found between the values obtained for both instruments (p>;0.05); a strong association was observed between measures of MIP and MEP obtained by the two methods and Bland-Altman analysis showed no systematic overestimation or underestimation of maximal respiratory pressures and SNIP. In conclusion, the results suggest that the UFMG manovacuometer is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing MIP, MEP and SNIP in healthy subjects.La manovacuometría es una prueba sencilla, rápida y no invasiva que mide las presiones respiratorias máximas (PRM). Directrices recomiendan el uso del manuvacuómetro digital debido a su alta precisión. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la reproducibilidad test-retest y la validez concurrente de un manuvacuómetro digital para medir las presiones inspiratoria y espiratoria máximas (PImáx y PEmáx) y de la presión inspiratoria nasal durante la aspiración (SNIP). Se evaluaron 30 sujetos sanos (20-30 años) por medio de los manovacuómetros digitales UFMG y MicroRPM(r) (Micro Medical, UK). Para evaluar la reproducibilidad, se utilizó el coeficiente de correlación intraclase (CCI) y el test t de student para muestras dependientes. Para el análisis de la validez se utilizaron: la correlación de Pearson, el test t de student para muestras dependientes, el análisis de regresión lineal y el método Bland-Altman. El nivel de significación considerado fue del 5% (p;0,05). La correlación entre los valores observados en los dos instrumentos fue de alta magnitud para todas las variables (0,82 a 0,85); no hubo diferencia significativa entre los valores medios obtenidos en los dos instrumentos (p>;0,05); Se observó una fuerte asociación entre las medidas de las PRM obtenidas por los dos métodos y el análisis de Bland-Altman no demostró sobreestimación o subestimación sistemática de las PRM y del SNIP. En conclusión, los resultados sugieren que el manovacuómetro UFMG es fiable y válido para la evaluación de las PRM y SNIP en sujetos sanos

Equações brasileiras: força muscular inspiratória

La fuerza muscular respiratoria (MRF) (presión inspiratoria máxima [MMAX] y presión espiratoria máxima [Mepmax]) varían cuando se estima por ecuaciones de predicción. El objetivo de este estudio era verificar si la clasificación del MIP obtenida por las ecuaciones de predicción propuestas por los autores brasileños es similar y concordante. La muestra consistió en 18 pacientes estables con debilidad cardiorrespiratoria, neurológica y muscular respiratoria. Mmax fue medido por el manovacuómetro analógico y comparado con las ecuaciones de predicción de autores brasileños. Solo dos autores debilidad muscular inspiradora (p<0.0001). Al evaluar la concordancia entre los autores (Bias), hubo una baja concordancia entre los valores predichos por las ecuaciones a excepción de los autores que detectaron debilidad de los músculos inspiratorios en los pacientes evaluados.A força dos músculos respiratórios (FMR) - pressão inspiratória máxima [PImáx] e pressão expiratória máxima [PEmáx] - apresentam variação quando estimadas por equações de predição. O objetivo deste estudo foi verificar se a classificação da PImáx obtida pelas equações de predição propostas por autores brasileiros é semelhante e concordante. A amostra foi constituída por 18 pacientes estáveis com disfunções cardiorrespiratória, neurológica e fraqueza muscular respiratória. A PImáx foi medida pelo manovacuômetro analógico e comparada com as equações de predição de autores brasileiros. Apenas dois autores detectaram fraqueza muscular inspiratória (p<0,0001). Ao avaliar a concordância entre autores (Bias), verificou-se baixa concordância entre os valores preditos pelas equações, exceto entre os autores que detectaram fraqueza muscular inspiratória nos pacientes avaliados.Respiratory muscle strength (RMS) (maximal inspiratory pressure [MIP] and maximal expiratory pressure [MEP]) vary when estimated by prediction equations. This study will verify whether the classification of MIP obtained by the prediction equations proposed by Brazilian authors is similar and concordant. The sample consisted of 18 stable patients with cardiorespiratory and neurological dysfunctions and respiratory muscle weakness. The MIP was measured by the analog compound gauge and compared to the prediction equations of Brazilian authors. Only two authors found inspiratory muscle weakness (p<0.0001). Assessing the agreement among authors (BIAS), there was a low agreement between the values predicted by the equations, except among the authors who detected inspiratory muscle weakness in the evaluated patients

Comparison of three protocols for measuring the maximal respiratory pressures

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 elt; 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 elt; 0.05). Conclusion: The proposed criterion resulted in the selection of pressure values closer to the individuals maximal capacity. This new criterion should be considered in future studies concerning MIP and MEP measurements

Test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of a digital manovacuometer

The manovacuometer is a simple, quick and non-invasive test which measures the maximal respiratory pressures (MRS). Guidelines recommend the use of a digital manovacuometer due to its high accuracy. The purpose of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of a digital manovacuometer in measuring the maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP/MEP) and nasal inspiratory pressure while sniffing (SNIP). A total of 30 healthy subjects were assessed (20-30 years old) using the UFMG and MicroRPM(r) (Micro Medical, UK) digital manovacuometers. To assess reliability, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Student's t test it was used for dependent samples. For the validity assessment, the following were used: Pearson correlation, Student's t test for dependent samples, linear regression and the Bland-Altman method. The level of significance was set at 5% (p<0.05). The ICC values were significant and showed a good magnitude (0.76 to 0.89) and no significant differences were found between the means of the variables of the UFMG digital manovacuometer analyzed within two days (p>0.05); the correlation between observed values from the two instruments was of high magnitude for all variables (0.82 to 0.85); no significant difference was found between the values obtained for both instruments (p>0.05); a strong association was observed between measures of MIP and MEP obtained by the two methods and Bland-Altman analysis showed no systematic overestimation or underestimation of maximal respiratory pressures and SNIP. In conclusion, the results suggest that the UFMG manovacuometer is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing MIP, MEP and SNIP in healthy subjects