OBJETIVO: Este estudo teve como objetivo comparar a força muscular respiratória (FMR) obtida por meio de manovacuômetros analógicos, utilizando diferentes tipos de bocais e traqueias. METODOLOGIA: Foram avaliados 50 voluntários sedentários ou insuficientemente ativos saudáveis (25 homens e 25 mulheres), com média de idade de 25 ± 5 anos, média de altura de 167 ± 8 cm e média de peso de 65 ± 12 kg, pertencentes à comunidade de São Carlos, SP, e região. Para a avaliação da FMR foram realizadas as medidas de pressão inspiratória máxima (PI MÁX) e pressão expiratória máxima (PE MÁX) de acordo com o método preconizado por Black e Hyatt (1969). Os voluntários foram submetidos à anamnese e exame físico, e, posteriormente, as pressões respiratórias máximas foram medidas com os indivíduos em posição ortostática, utilizando-se dois manovacuômetros analógicos com limite operacional de ± 300 cmH2O, com uso de clipe nasal, um bocal circular e um retangular, com traqueias de mesmo comprimento e diâmetros internos diferentes, sendo estes de 1 cm e 1,5 cm. RESULTADOS: Observou-se que não houve diferenças significativas (Teste de Wilcoxon: p < 0,05) entre os diâmetros das traqueias, e que os valores obtidos da PE MÁX com o bocal retangular foram significativamente maiores em ambos os sexos. CONCLUSÃO: Os resultados deste estudo mostram que não houve interferência dos diâmetros das traqueias nos valores obtidos de PE MÁX e PI MÁX, no entanto, os tipos de bocais utilizados no manovacuômetro analógico interferem nos valores obtidos de PE MÁX. O formato mais anatômico do bocal retangular colaborou para a obtenção de maiores valores de PE MÁX.

OBJECTIVE: This study compares the respiratory muscle strength (RMS) obtained from analog manometers using different types of mouthpiece and trachea. METHODOLOGY: Fifty healthy sedentary or insufficiently active individuals were evaluated (25 men and 25 women), in age 25 ± 5 years, height of 167 ± 8 cm and weight of 65 ± 12 kg, belonging to the community of São Carlos, SP, and region. For the evaluation of RMS were taken measures of maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and maximal expiratory pressure (MEP) according to the method recommended by Black and Hyatt (1969). The volunteers were referred to anamnesis and, later, maximum respiratory pressures were measured in the individuals at standing, using an analog manometers with operational limit of ± 300 cmH2O, with a nose clip, a circular and a rectangular mouthpiece and tracheas with the same length and different internal diameters, which are of 1 cm and 1.5 cm. RESULTS: It was observed that there were no significant differences (Wilcoxon Test: p < 0.05) between the diameters of the trachea, and the values obtained by the MEP with the rectangular mouthpiece were significantly higher in both sexes. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that there was no interference from the diameters of the trachea in the values obtained from MEP and MIP; however, the types of mouthpiece used in analog manometer interfere in the values obtained from MEP. The anatomical shape of the rectangular mouthpiece cooperated in obtaining the highest values of MEP.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the measurements of spirometric peak expiratory flow (PEF) from five different PEF meters and to determine if their values are in agreement. Inaccurate equipment may result in incorrect diagnoses of asthma and inappropriate treatments. METHODS: Sixty-eight healthy, sedentary and insufficiently active subjects, aged from 19 to 40 years, performed PEF measurements using Air Zone®, Assess®, Galemed®, Personal Best® and Vitalograph® peak flow meters. The highest value recorded for each subject for each device was compared to the corresponding spirometric values using Friedman's test with Dunn's post-hoc (p<0.05), Spearman's correlation test and Bland-Altman's agreement test. RESULTS: The median and interquartile ranges for the spirometric values and the Air Zone®, Assess®, Galemed®, Personal Best® and Vitalograph® meters were 428 (263-688 L/min), 450 (350-800 L/min), 420 (310-720 L/min), 380 (300-735 L/min), 400 (310-685 L/min) and 415 (335-610 L/min), respectively. Significant differences were found when the spirometric values were compared to those recorded by the Air Zone® (p<0.001) and Galemed ® (p<0.01) meters. There was no agreement between the spirometric values and the five PEF meters. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the values recorded from Galemed® meters may underestimate the actual value, which could lead to unnecessary interventions, and that Air Zone® meters overestimate spirometric values, which could obfuscate the need for intervention. These findings must be taken into account when interpreting both devices' results in younger people. These differences should also be considered when directly comparing values from different types of PEF meters.