Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters








Year range
1.
Braz. j. phys. ther. (Impr.) ; 20(1): 96-103, Jan.-Feb. 2016. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: lil-778386

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of diaphragmatic activation control (diaphC) on Sniff Nasal-Inspiratory Pressure (SNIP) and Maximum Relaxation Rate of inspiratory muscles (MRR) in healthy subjects. METHOD: Twenty subjects (9 male; age: 23 (SD=2.9) years; BMI: 23.8 (SD=3) kg/m2; FEV1/FVC: 0.9 (SD=0.1)] performed 5 sniff maneuvers in two different moments: with or without instruction on diaphC. Before the first maneuver, a brief explanation was given to the subjects on how to perform the sniff test. For sniff test with diaphC, subjects were instructed to perform intense diaphragm activation. The best SNIP and MRR values were used for analysis. MRR was calculated as the ratio of first derivative of pressure over time (dP/dtmax) and were normalized by dividing it by peak pressure (SNIP) from the same maneuver. RESULTS: SNIP values were significantly different in maneuvers with and without diaphC [without diaphC: -100 (SD=27.1) cmH2O/ with diaphC: -72.8 (SD=22.3) cmH2O; p<0.0001], normalized MRR values were not statistically different [without diaphC: -9.7 (SD=2.6); with diaphC: -8.9 (SD=1.5); p=0.19]. Without diaphC, 40% of the sample did not reach the appropriate sniff criteria found in the literature. CONCLUSION: Diaphragmatic control performed during SNIP test influences obtained inspiratory pressure, being lower when diaphC is performed. However, there was no influence on normalized MRR.


Subject(s)
Humans , Respiratory Muscles/physiology , Diaphragm/physiology , Inhalation/physiology , Inspiratory Capacity/physiology , Pressure , Nose/physiology
2.
Braz. j. phys. ther. (Impr.) ; 14(5): 426-431, Sept.-Oct. 2010. graf, tab
Article in Portuguese | LILACS | ID: lil-570723

ABSTRACT

CONTEXTUALIZAÇÃO: A medida da pressão inspiratória nasal, conhecida como sniff teste, desenvolvida como um novo teste de força muscular inspiratória, utilizada principalmente em doenças neuromusculares, é de fácil realização e não invasiva. Apesar da importância clínica da avaliação da pressão inspiratória nasal, não existe um instrumento nacional disponível para realizá-la. OBJETIVOS: Comparar os manovacuômetros eletrônicos nacional e importado para a avaliação da pressão inspiratória nasal em pessoas saudáveis. MÉTODOS: Foram avaliados 18 voluntários saudáveis (idade 21,4±2,8 anos, IMC 23,4±2,5 Kg/m² , CVF 102,1±10,3 por centopred, VEF1 98,4±1 por centopred) por meio de duas medidas de pressão inspiratória nasal em dois equipamentos diferentes: um nacional e outro importado. Todos os sujeitos realizaram a manobra no mesmo horário do dia, em dias ocasionais, sendo a ordem determinada aleatoriamente. Para análise estatística, foi utilizado o teste t pareado, a correlação de Pearson e o Bland-Altman com nível de significância de 5 por cento. RESULTADOS: As médias encontradas durante as duas medidas das pressões nasais foram de 125±42,4 cmH2O para o aparelho importado e de 131,7±28,7 cmH2O para o nacional. A análise de Pearson demonstrou uma correlação significativa entre as médias, com um coeficiente r=0,63. Os valores médios não apresentaram diferenças significativas pelo teste t pareado (p>0,05). Na análise de Bland-Altman, encontrou-se um BIAS igual a 7 cm H2O, desvio-padrão de 32,9 cmH2O para o DP e um intervalo de confiança de -57,5 cmH2O até 71,5 cmH2O. CONCLUSÃO: Os resultados encontrados sugerem que o manovacuômetro eletrônico nacional é viável e seguro para realização do sniff teste em sujeitos saudáveis.


BACKGROUND: The measurement of nasal inspiratory pressure, known as the sniff test, was developed as a new test of inspiratory muscle strength, mainly used in neuromuscular conditions. The test is easy to be performed and noninvasive. Despite the clinical importance of assessment of nasal inspiratory pressure a national equipment is not available to assess it. OBJECTIVES: To compare a national with a foreign manovacuometer in assessing the nasal inspiratory pressure (sniff test) in healthy subjects. METHODS: 18 subjects were evaluated (age 21.44±2.8 years, BMI 23.4±2.5 kg/m² , FVC 102.1±10.3 percent pred, FEV1 98.4±1 percent pred). We performed two measures of nasal inspiratory pressure using two different manovacuometer: a national and a foreign. All subjects performed the tests at the same time of day, in different days being the order of the testes established randomly. It was used the paired t test, Pearson correlation and the Bland-Altman plots for statistical analysis considering a 5 percent significance level. RESULTS: The averages observed for the two measures of nasal pressures were 125±42.4 cmH2O for the foreign equipment, and 131.7±28.7 cmH2O for the national equipment. The Pearson correlation showed significant correlation between the means with a coefficient of r=0.63. The t test showed no significant differences between both measurements (p>0,05). The BIAS±SD found in Bland-Altman plot analysis was 7 cmH2O with limits of agreement between -57.5 cmH2O and 71.5 cmH2O. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the national electronic device is feasible and safe to the sniff test measurement in healthy subjects.


Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Male , Young Adult , Inhalation/physiology , Muscle Strength , Respiratory Function Tests/instrumentation , Respiratory Muscles/physiology , Nose
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL