Comparison of measured and predicted values for maximum respiratory pressures in healthy students

Abstracts

Respiratory Muscle Strength is an important tool to diagnose different disorders. Reference equations considered different populations and methodologies. However, there is no agreement on what is the ideal equation to use. The aim of this study was to compare and correlate the measured values of maximal respiratory pressures with those demonstrated by equations described in literature. The sample consisted of 90 healthy individuals aged from 6 to 12 years old. Anthropometric, spirometric and manometric measurements were performed. The comparison between measured and predicted values was significantly different, showing the mean male maximum inspiratory pressure (maxIP) (80.65±26.78) to be higher than that predicted by Wilson et al. (67.40±5.65, p<0.001) and Schmidt et al. (70.69±21.70, p<0.05). The mean male maximum expiratory pressure (maxEP) (84.35±23.16) was lower than the one predicted by Domènech-Clar et al. (92.25±16.90, p<0.01) and higher than the one predicted by Schmidt et al. (72.78±13.62 p<0.001). The mean of female individuals' maxIP (76.14±26.08) was higher than that predicted by Wilson et al. (57.96±6.04, p<0.001), Schmidt et al. (68.54±7.08, p<0.01), and Domènech-Clar et al. (67.61±11.17, p<0.01). The mean female maxEP (74.55±20.05) was higher than the ones predicted by Wilson et al. (66.65±9.55, p<0.001) and lower than the one predicted by Domènech-Clar et al. (81.16±14.37, p<0.01). The correlations between measured and predicted values were from low to medium magnitude (range r=0.1 to 0.5) being significant for males when maxIP was correlated with that predicted by Wilson et al. (p<0.01) and Domènech-Clar et al. (p<0.05). For females, both correlations were significant (maxIP p<0.01; maxEP p<0.05). It was concluded that the equations failed to predict the values of maximum respiratory pressures, reinforcing the need for new equations of respiratory muscle strength.

muscle strength; reference values; respiratory muscles

A Força Muscular Respiratória é uma ferramenta capaz de diagnosticar diferentes desordens. As equações de referência até hoje descritas consideram diferentes populações e metodologias. Entretanto, não há consenso quanto a qual equação é ideal para se utilizar. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar e correlacionar valores medidos de pressões respiratórias máximas com aqueles previstos por equações descritas na literatura. A amostra foi de 90 indivíduos saudáveis de 6 a 12 anos. Foram realizadas antropometria, espirometria e manovacuometria. A comparação dos valores medidos e previstos diferiu significativamente, apresentando pressão inspiratória máxima (PImáx) média (80,65±26,78), no sexo masculino, maior que a prevista por Wilson et al. (67,40±5,65; p<0,001) e Schmidt et al. (70,69±21,70; p<0,05). Pressão expiratória máxima (PEmáx) masculina média (84,35±23,16) foi menor que a prevista por Domènech-Clar et al. (92,25±16,90; p<0,01) e maior que a prevista por Schmidt et al. (72,78±13,62; p<0,001). Pressão inspiratória máxima feminina média (76,14±26,08) foi maior que a prevista por Wilson et al. (57,96±6,04; p<0,001), Schmidt et al. (68,54±7,08; p<0,01) e Domènech-Clar et al. (67,61±11,17; p<0,01). Pressão expiratória máxima feminina média (74,55±20,05) foi maior que a prevista por Wilson et al. (66,65±9,55; p<0,001) e menor que a prevista por Domènech-Clar et al. (81,16±14,37; p<0,01). As correlações entre valores medidos e previstos foram de baixa a média magnitude (variação entre r=0,1 e 0,5), sendo significativas para o sexo masculino quando a PImáx foi correlacionada à prevista por Wilson et al. (p<0,01) e Domènech-Clar et al. (p<0,05). Já para o sexo feminino, ambas as correlações foram significativas (PImáx p<0,01; PEmáx p<0,05). Concluiu-se que as equações não conseguiram predizer os valores de pressões respiratórias máximas, reforçando a necessidade de novas equações de força muscular respiratória.

força muscular; valores de referência; músculos respiratórios

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparison of measured and predicted values for maximum respiratory pressures in healthy students

Comparación de los valores medidos y previstos de presiones respiratorias máximas en escolares sanos.

Lídia Miranda Barreto; Marco Antônio Duarte; Sarah Costa Drumond de Oliveira Moura; Betânia Luiza Alexandre; Leonardo Silva Augusto; Maria Jussara Fernandes Fontes

Department of Pediatrics in the Medical School of UFMG – Belo Horizonte (MG), Brazil

Correspondence to

ABSTRACT

Respiratory Muscle Strength is an important tool to diagnose different disorders. Reference equations considered different populations and methodologies. However, there is no agreement on what is the ideal equation to use. The aim of this study was to compare and correlate the measured values of maximal respiratory pressures with those demonstrated by equations described in literature. The sample consisted of 90 healthy individuals aged from 6 to 12 years old. Anthropometric, spirometric and manometric measurements were performed. The comparison between measured and predicted values was significantly different, showing the mean male maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) (80.65±26.78) to be higher than that predicted by Wilson et al. (67.40±5.65, p<0.001) and Schmidt et al. (70.69±21.70, p<0.05). The mean male maximum expiratory pressure (MEP) (84.35±23.16) was lower than the one predicted by Domènech-Clar et al. (92.25±16.90, p<0.01) and higher than the one predicted by Schmidt et al. (72.78±13.62 p<0.001). The mean of female individuals' MIP (76.14±26.08) was higher than that predicted by Wilson et al. (57.96±6.04, p<0.001), Schmidt et al. (68.54±7.08, p<0.01), and Domènech-Clar et al. (67.61±11.17, p<0.01). The mean female MEP (74.55±20.05) was higher than the ones predicted by Wilson et al. (66.65±9.55, p<0.001) and lower than the one predicted by Domènech-Clar et al. (81.16±14.37, p<0.01). The correlations between measured and predicted values were from low to medium magnitude (range r=0.1 to 0.5) being significant for males when MIP was correlated with that predicted by Wilson et al. (p<0.01) and Domènech-Clar et al. (p<0.05). For females, both correlations were significant (MIP p<0.01; MEP p<0.05). It was concluded that the equations failed to predict the values of maximum respiratory pressures, reinforcing the need for new equations of respiratory muscle strength.

Keywords: muscle strength; reference values; respiratory muscles.

RESUMEN

La Fuerza Muscular Respiratoria es una herramienta capaz de diagnosticar diferentes desórdenes. Las ecuaciones de referencia hasta hoy descritas consideran diferentes poblaciones y metodologías. Entre tanto, no hay consenso en cuanto a que ecuación es ideal para utilizar. El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar y correlacionar valores medidos de presiones respiratorias máximas con aquellos previstos por las ecuaciones descritas en la literatura. La muestra fue de 90 individuos sanos de 6 a 12 años. Fueron realizadas antropometría, espirometría y manovacuometría. La comparación de los valores medidos y previstos difirió significativamente, presentando presión inspiratoria máxima (PImáx) media (80,65±26,78) , en el sexo masculino, mayor que la prevista por Wilson et al. (67,40±5,65; p<0,001) y Schmidt et al. (70,69±21,70; p<0,05). Presión expiratoria máxima (PEmáx) masculina media (84,35±23,16) menor que la prevista por Domènech-Clar et al. (92,25±16,90; p<0,01) y mayor que Schmidt et al. (72,78±13,62; p<0,001). Presión inspiratoria máxima femenina media (76,14±26,08) mayor que la prevista por Wilson et al. (57,96±6,04; p<0,001), Schmidt et al. (68,54±7,08; p<0,01) y Domènech-Clar et al. (67,61±11,17; p<0,01). Presión expiratoria máxima femenina media (74,55±20,05) mayor que la prevista por Wilson et al. (66,65±9,55; p<0,001) y menor que Domènech-Clar et al. (81,16±14,37; p<0,01). Las correlaciones entre valores medidos y previstos fueron de baja a media magnitud (variación entre r=0,1 y 0,5) siendo significativas para el sexo masculino cuando la PImáx fue correlacionada a la prevista por Wilson et al. (p<0,01) y Domènech-Clar et al. (p<0,05). Para el sexo femenino, ambas correlaciones fueron significativas (PImáx p<0,01; PEmáx p<0,05). Se concluyó que las ecuaciones no consiguieron predecir los valores de presiones respiratorias máximas, reforzando la necesidad de nuevas ecuaciones de fuerza muscular respiratoria.

Palabras clave: fuerza muscular; valores de referencia; músculos respiratorios.

INTRODUCTION

Respiratory Muscle Strength is defined as the maximum respiratory pressure measured orally and attributed to an effort to generate pressure alterations^1,2. It is measured by assessing the pressure after forced inspiration and expiration, thus characterizing the maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) and maximum expiratory pressure (MEP), which indicates the strength of inspiratory and expiratory muscles, respectively.

The use of a manuvacuometer was described by Black e Hyatt in 1969 as a simple, inexpensive and non-invasive method^3,4. This is a diagnostic method⁵ which provides guidance to execute the respiratory muscle endurance training protocol⁶.

When pressures are different from their predicted values, there is possibly a weakness associated with mechanical disadvantage, thus generating endurance deficit, and inefficacy in coughing and expectorating secretions⁷.

In order to obtain respiratory pressure values, it is necessary to compare the measured values with those predicted for a population, considering the age group. Several factors influence these values, such as age, gender, nutritional status, and anthropometric and spirometric variables. However, there is great diversity between the reference values found in literature, and this is due to the different sample selection criteria, equipment, techniques and population^8,9.

According to the review published by Freitas et al., a few studies provide reference equations to predict respiratory muscle strength for healthy children and adolescents¹⁰. Among the ones that provide predictive equations, there are: Wilson et al.¹¹, who used weight and age as variables in MIP and MEP equations, respectively, for both genders¹¹, who used weight, height and age¹². Besides these ones, which are described in literature, Schmidt et al.¹³ published an equation for the Brazilian population which uses variables such as age and height¹³.

Therefore, considering there is no consensus concerning the use of predictive equations of respiratory strength, the objective of this study was to test the efficacy of the equations mentioned in literature, such as the ones established by Wilson et al.¹¹, Domènech-Clar et al.¹² and Schmidt et al.¹³, by comparing and correlating their predictive values with values measured in a population of healthy children and adolescents.

METHODOLOGY

The sample consisted of 90 students aged between 6 and 12 years old, who practiced regular physical activities, with eutrophic body mass index, non-smokers, without chest wall deformities or pulmonary disease, and normal pulmonary function. The informed consent form was signed by parents or adults in charge. Individuals with chronic diseases, cognitive deficit, rheumatic or cardiovascular disorders, chronic pneumopathies, acute exacerbation and controlled medication were excluded.

All of the volunteers were enlightened as to the study according to resolution n. 196/96 of the National Health Council. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), protocol n. 0063.0.203.000-10, and data collection began after the protocol was approved and the informed consent form was signed. Afterwards, adults in charge and participants were scheduled for an interview, when anamnesis was conducted. At the end of the study, adults in charge returned to the school for a feedback regarding the results.

Aiming to characterize the studied population, all of the participants were submitted to an evaluation of the respiratory system, anthropometric measurement (weight, height¹⁴, arm circumference and triceps skinfold^15,16), analysis of pulmonary function^17,18, and respiratory muscle strength.

For spirometry, a spirometer of the VITATRACE VT 130 brand was used, which traced forced expiratory curves and basal respiratory cycles, from which values regarding pulmonary functions were determined according to the standardization by the American Thoracic Society (ATS). The considered acceptance criteria of forced vital capacity (FVC) and reproducibility were: satisfactory beginning of the test, with retro-extrapolation volume lower than 5% of the FVC or 150 mL¹⁷.

In order to measure muscle strength, a portable manovacuometer was used (GER-AR), graded from -300 to +300 cmH₂0, in the sitting position, with the trunk placed 90º in relation to the hips, supported upper limbs and nose clip. For MIP, the participant performed maximum inspiration from the residual volume (RV), and, to measure MEP, maximum expiration starting from the total pulmonary capacity (TPC). There were five maneuvers, with the registration of peak pressure values, without leakage, with effort sustained for two seconds. An interval of thirty seconds took place between maneuvers, and there were two minute intervals between MIP and MEP. The difference between maneuvers could not surpass 5%. Out of the five maneuvers, the first and the last ones were ruled out, so there was an average of the three remaining maneuvers³.

The distribution of samples was verified by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and/or Shapiro Wilk test. According to distribution, at first the unpaired t-test was used to compare genders in relation to mean values of variables. In order to compare the means of measured manometric values and those predicted in literature, the post-hoc Student Newman Keuls (SNK) analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to measure the correlation between measured and predicted values by the reference equations. The considered significance level was 5%.

RESULTS

Out of the 90 students, 51.1% (n=46) were males and 48.9% (n=44) were females, with mean age of 8.71±1.62 for the male gender; and 8.88±1.99 for the female gender, so there were no differences in general age, not even among the variables when genders were compared, except for MEP (p=0.0349) (Table 1).

Table 2 compares the methodology used in this study with that from the authors Wilson et al.¹¹, Schmidt et al., and Domènech-Clar et al.¹²

Wilson et al.¹¹ are the only ones who did not use a nose clip. Besides, the age group was similar to the one used by Domènech-Clar et al.¹² The methodology by Schmidt et al. was similar to the one in this study, since it worked with a larger sample and conducted the longest time of sustaining effort (two seconds). Domènech-Clar et al.¹² Obtained the highest number of maneuvers and correlated more independent variables, except when compared to this study.

Figure 1 illustrates the comparisons between measured and predicted valus of MIP and MEP among males, represented by Figures 1A and B, and, for females, represented by Figures 1C and D.

In the male gender (Figure 1A), MIP measured values were different from the predicted values, and the measured ones (p<0.0001), as well as those by Domènech-Clar et al.¹² (p<0.05) were superior to the values found by Wilson et al.¹¹; the measured values were higher than those measured by Schmidt et al.¹³ (p<0.05).

The MEP was also different in the male gender (Figure 1B). Domènech-Clar et al.¹² presented values that were higher than all the others; and measured values (p<0.0001 and those by Wilson et al.¹¹ (p<0.0001) were higher than the ones by Schmidt et al.¹³.

As to MIP for the female gender (Figure 1C), the measured and predicted values were also different from each other. Measured values were higher to all of the predicted values. The values by Schmidt et al.¹³ (p<0.0001) and Domènech-Clar et al.¹² (p<0.0001) were higher than the values by Wilson et al.¹¹.

In MEP, also in the female gender (Figure 1D), Domènech-Clar et al.¹² presented higher values in relation to all of the others. Besides, measured values (p<0.0001) were higher to those found by Wilson et al.¹¹.

Figure 2 presents dispersion diagrams in the male gender with MIP and MEP measured and predicted by the equations of Wilson et al.¹¹, Domènech-Clar et al. and Schmidt et al.¹³, respectively. The MIP values measured in the male gender presented moderate and significant association with the values predicted by Wilson et al.¹¹ (r=0.3137 and p=0.00337) and Domènech-Clar et al.¹² (r=0.3672 and p=0.0121) (Figures 2A and B, respectively). By comparing these with Schmidt et al.¹³, the association with measured values had low magnitude and was not significant (r=-0.07535 and p=0.6187) (Fugure 2C). For MEP, measured values presented low magnitude association and no statistical significance for the predicted values proposed by the three equations (Figures 2D to F).

Figure 3 presents the same diagrams from the previous figure, however, considering the female gender. Measured values of MIP and MEP presented moderate to significant association with the values predicted by all of the analyzed predictive equations (Figures 3A to F).

DISCUSSION

The choice of a reference equation is based on a standardized technique and on the proper selection of the population. However, the chosen equation may not characterize the sample in relation to the found maximum pressures¹⁰.

Studies describe that the discrepant values predicted in literature are caused by different methodologies, used mouthpiece, maneuvers, location and population¹⁹. Selection, sample, equipment and techniques are also variable factors⁹.

By comparing the methodology of the mentioned equations and this study, the position of the tests was similar. In Wilson et al.¹¹, predicted values were lower to the others, which could have been caused by not using the nose clip and aerial escape.

Effort sustaining time ranged from one to three seconds, and all of them began MIP from RV, and max EP from TPC, and such measurement is established by the ATS. Literature shows that, when the measurement of MIP and MEP is originated from RV and TPC, respectively, and also in the functional residual capacity (FRC), there are different results since the elastic gathering does not participate in the final measurement²⁰.

Sample selection also influences the variability of MIP and MEP final values⁹. This study and the equations found in literature presented similar criteria. Besides, the sample was randomized in Wilson et al.¹¹ and Domènech-Clar et al.¹² In Schmidt et al.¹³, no randomization is described, which may have interfered with the generalization of results. This study was not randomized.

Sample size varied among the studies. This study and the predictive equations were different, and not all of them conducted a previous sample calculation. Another difference in sample selection is the classification of "healthy" subjects. In Wilson et al.¹¹, Domènech-Clar et al.¹² and in this study, participants underwent spirometry in order to prove the absence of respiratory disorders, which did not happen in Schmidt et al.¹³.

The number of maneuvers ranged from three to nine, considering the learning effect. Some authors recommend three to five maneuvers in other to obtain three acceptable ones and two reproducible ones, with difference lower than 5%²¹. This study performed the measurements according to the guidelines proposed by the Brazilian Society of Pneumology and Tisiology (SBPT)¹⁸.

As to gender, studies demonstrate that the strength is more present in the male gender^12,20,22,23. In the three equations, as well as in values measured in this study, when analyzing normality values, all of the respiratory pressure equations are higher among boys, and MEP values are higher than MIP values in both genders.

For the age variable, it is known that respiratory pressures increase with aging. These findings are frequent, even in studies with different populations at different age groups²⁰.

As to the correlations between variables, we observed there was some statistical significance between manometric variables with anthropometric and spirometric variables. From the differences found in measured and predicted values, the need to create new equations that could better reflect respiratory strength in the population involved came up.

Population is another factor that influences respiratory pressure. When we compare the values predicted by Schmidt et al.¹³ for a sample in Rio Grande do Sul with the ones measured in this study, there is a difference between them, which leads to the conclusion that these reference values were not able to predict the values obtained for the respiratory pressures of the assessed population — which indicates that predictive equations can go through variations between individuals from different ethnic groups²⁴, different countries or even in the same country²⁵. The findings are in accordance with those by Parreira et al.⁵, who compared values of the healthy Brazilian population in the state of Minas Gerais with those predicted by the equation of Neder et al.²⁶, from a sample from São Paulo, and these values were also different.

Therefore, in order for measured and predicted values to be similar, it is important that there is correlation between measurements, however, without statistically significant differences. So, it is possible to conclude that the reference values proposed by the equations of Wilson et al.¹¹, Domènech-Clar et al.¹² and Schmidt et al.¹³ were not good respiratory strength predictors in the studied population, thus reinforcing the need to establish normality values for populations of children and adolescents from different regions in Brazil.

REFERENCES

• 1. Leith DE, Bradley M. Ventilatory muscle strength and endurance training. J Appl Physiol. 1976;41(4):508-16.
• 2. Shaffer TH, Wolfson MR, Bhutani VK. Respiratory muscle function, assessment, and training. Phys Ther. 1981;61(12):1711-23.
• 3. Black LF, Hyatt RE. Maximal respiratory pressures: normal values and relationship to age and sex. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1969;99(5):696-702.
• 4. Camelo Júnior JS, Terra Filho J, Manço JC. Pressões respiratórias máximas em adultos normais. J Pneumol. 1985;11(4):181-4.
• 5. Neder JA, Andreoni S, Castelo-Filho A, Nery LE. Reference values for lung function tests. I. Static volumes. Braz J Med Biol Res. 1999;32(6):703-17.
• 6. Costa D, Sampaio LM, Lorenzzo VA, Jamami M, Damaso AR. Avaliação da força muscular respiratória e amplitudes torácicas e abdominais após a RFR em indivíduos obesos. Revi Latinoam Enferm. 2003;11(2):156-60.
• 7. Monteiro JGB, Fernandes LC, Machado O. Atuação Fisioterapêutica no Comprometimento Cardiorespiratório na Sindrome de Guillain-Barré: Relato de Caso. São Paulo: Hospital Nossa Senhora da Penha; 2003.
• ⁸
  ATS. Lung function testing: selection of reference values and interpretative strategies. American Thoracic Society. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1991;144(5):1202-18.
• 9. Pereira CAC. Espirometria. Jornal de Pneumologia. 2002;8 Suppl(3):S1-82.
• 10. Freitas DA, Borja RO, Ferreira GM, Nogueira PA, Mendonça KM. Equações preditivas e valores de normalidade para pressões respiratórias máximas na infância e adolescência. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2011;29(4):656-62.
• 11. Wilson SH, Cooke NT, Edwards RH, Spiro SG. Predicted normal values for maximal respiratory pressures in caucasian adults and children. Thorax. 1984;39(7):535-8.
• 12. Domènech-Clar R, López-Andreu JA, Compte-Torrero L, De Diego-Damiá A, Macián-Gisbert V, Perpiñá-Tordera M, et al. Maximal static respiratory pressures in children and adolescents. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2003;35(2):126-32.
• 13. Schmidt R, Donato CRF, Valle PHC, Costa D. Avaliação da força muscular respiratória em crianças e adolescentes. Práxis - Rev Fisioter Univers Cruz Alta. 1999;1(1):41-54.
• 14. Conde WL, Monteiro CA. Valores críticos do índice de massa corporal para classificação do estado nutricional de crianças e adolescentes brasileiros. J Pediatr. 2006;82:266-72.
• 15. Frisancho AR. Triceps skin fold and upper arm muscle size norms for assessment of nutrition status. Am J Clin Nutr. 1974;27(10):1052-8.
• 16. Frisancho AR. New norms of upper limb fat and muscle areas for assessment of nutritional status. Am J Clin Nutr. 1981;34(11):2540-5.
• 17. ATS. Standardization of Spirometry, 1994 Update. American Thoracic Society. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152(3):1107-36.
• 18. SBPT. Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia. Diretrizes para Testes de Função Pulmonar. J Pneumol. 2002;28:1-221.
• 19. Bruschi C, Cerveri I, Zoia MC, Fanfulla F, Fiorentini M, Casali L, et al. Reference values of maximal respiratory mouth pressures: a population-based study. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992;146(3):790-3.
• 20. Gaultier C, Zinman R. Maximal static pressures in healthy children. Respir Physiol. 1983;51(1):45-61.
• 21. Szeinberg A, Marcotte JE, Roizin H, Mindorff C, England S, Tabachnik E, et al. Normal values of maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures with a portable apparatus in children, adolescents and young adults. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1987;3(4):255-8
• 22. Harik-Khan RI, Wise RA, Fozard JL. Determinants of maximal inspiratory pressure. The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;158(5 Pt 1):1459-64.
• 23. Matecki S, Prioux J, Jaber S, Hayot M, Prefaut C, Ramonatxo M. Respiratory pressures in boys from 11-17 years old: a semilongitudinal study. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2003;35(5):368-74.
• 24. Evans JA, Whitelaw WA. The assessment of maximal respiratory mouth pressures in adults. Respir Care. 2009;54(10):1348-59.
• 25. Leal AH, Hamasaki TA, Jamami M, Di Lorenzo VA, Pessoa BV. Comparação entre valores de força muscular respiratória medidos e previstos por diferentes equações. Fisioter Pesq. 2007;14(3):25-30.
• 26. Parreira VF, França DC, Zampa CC, Fonseca MM, Tomich GM, Britto RR. Pressões respiratórias máximas: valores encontrados e preditos em indivíduos saudáveis. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2007;11(5):361-8.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  01 Nov 2013
• Date of issue
  Sept 2013

History

• Received
  Nov 2012
• Accepted
  Aug 2013