Methodology and reliability of respiratory muscle assessment

Abstract

The optimal method for respiratory muscle endurance (RME) assessment remains unclear. This study assessed the test-retest reliability of two RME-test methodologies. Fifteen healthy adults attended the laboratory on four occasions, separated by 5 ± 2 days, and completed each test in a random, "one on two" order. They performed spirometry testing, maximal respiratory pressure assessment and two different RME tests: an inspiratory resistive breathing (IRB) and an isocapnic hyperpnea endurance (IHE) test. Typical error, expressed as coefficient of variation, for IRB maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and IHE maximal ventilation were 12.21 (8.85-19.67) % and 10.73 (7.78-17.29) %, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients for the same parameters were 0.83 (0.46-0.94) and 0.80 (0.41-0.93), respectively. No correlations were found between RME parameters derived from the IHE and IRB tests (all p > 0.05). Significant positive correlations were found between both IRB and IHE outcomes and spirometry parameters, MIP and maximal expiratory pressure (p < 0.05). Given these results, IRB and IHE appear to be suitable for RME testing in healthy people, although they may reflect different physiological mechanisms (respiratory mechanics and respiratory muscle capacity for IHE test vs. inspiratory muscle capacity for IRB test). Future studies are therefore warranted that compare IRB and IHE tests in clinical settings.

Keywords: Expiratory muscles; Inspiratory muscles; Respiratory muscle endurance; Respiratory muscles.