Anne E Palermo, Jane E Butler, Claire L Boswell-Ruys
{"title":"脊髓损伤患者两种吸气肌训练方案的比较:二次分析。","authors":"Anne E Palermo, Jane E Butler, Claire L Boswell-Ruys","doi":"10.1038/s41394-023-00594-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design/setting: </strong>Secondary analysis.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the change in maximal inspiratory pressure (PI<sub>max</sub>) over the first 4 weeks of two different inspiratory muscle training (IMT) protocols and explore if either method is more effective for people with spinal cord injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data originated from two published studies. Participants completed flow-resistive IMT (F-IMT) at 80% daily PI<sub>max,</sub> 7 days/week (supervised weekly), or threshold IMT (T-IMT) at 30-80% weekly PI<sub>max,</sub> twice-daily, 5 days/week (supervised every session). Seven participants from each trial were matched by training adherence, level of spinal cord injury, impairment grade (A-C), and height. Differences between F-IMT and T-IMT groups in training intensity, breaths taken, inspiratory work, and the change in the PI<sub>max</sub> from baseline at the end of week four were analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over 4 weeks, there was no difference in the change in PI<sub>max</sub> between groups (Absolute change in PI<sub>max</sub> (cmH<sub>2</sub>O): p = 0.456, Percent change in PI<sub>max</sub> relative to baseline: p = 0.128). F-IMT participants trained at a higher intensity (median: 77 vs 22 cmH<sub>2</sub>O, p = 0.001 and 80% baseline vs 61% baseline, p = 0.038) but took fewer breaths (840 vs 1404 breaths, p = 0.017) than T-IMT participants. Inspiratory work was similar between groups (64,789 vs 65,910 (% PI<sub>max</sub> × number of breaths), p = 0.535).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings support both methods of IMT as the change in PI<sub>max</sub> and inspiratory work were similar between groups. However, daily high-intensity F-IMT with intermittent supervision, required fewer breaths and less participant and therapist time. Future studies should examine optimal dosage and supervision required to achieve increased PI<sub>max</sub>.</p>","PeriodicalId":22079,"journal":{"name":"Spinal Cord Series and Cases","volume":"9 1","pages":"42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10423237/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of two inspiratory muscle training protocols in people with spinal cord injury: a secondary analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Anne E Palermo, Jane E Butler, Claire L Boswell-Ruys\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41394-023-00594-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design/setting: </strong>Secondary analysis.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the change in maximal inspiratory pressure (PI<sub>max</sub>) over the first 4 weeks of two different inspiratory muscle training (IMT) protocols and explore if either method is more effective for people with spinal cord injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data originated from two published studies. Participants completed flow-resistive IMT (F-IMT) at 80% daily PI<sub>max,</sub> 7 days/week (supervised weekly), or threshold IMT (T-IMT) at 30-80% weekly PI<sub>max,</sub> twice-daily, 5 days/week (supervised every session). Seven participants from each trial were matched by training adherence, level of spinal cord injury, impairment grade (A-C), and height. Differences between F-IMT and T-IMT groups in training intensity, breaths taken, inspiratory work, and the change in the PI<sub>max</sub> from baseline at the end of week four were analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over 4 weeks, there was no difference in the change in PI<sub>max</sub> between groups (Absolute change in PI<sub>max</sub> (cmH<sub>2</sub>O): p = 0.456, Percent change in PI<sub>max</sub> relative to baseline: p = 0.128). F-IMT participants trained at a higher intensity (median: 77 vs 22 cmH<sub>2</sub>O, p = 0.001 and 80% baseline vs 61% baseline, p = 0.038) but took fewer breaths (840 vs 1404 breaths, p = 0.017) than T-IMT participants. Inspiratory work was similar between groups (64,789 vs 65,910 (% PI<sub>max</sub> × number of breaths), p = 0.535).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings support both methods of IMT as the change in PI<sub>max</sub> and inspiratory work were similar between groups. However, daily high-intensity F-IMT with intermittent supervision, required fewer breaths and less participant and therapist time. Future studies should examine optimal dosage and supervision required to achieve increased PI<sub>max</sub>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spinal Cord Series and Cases\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"42\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10423237/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spinal Cord Series and Cases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41394-023-00594-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spinal Cord Series and Cases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41394-023-00594-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究设计/设置:二次分析。目的:比较两种不同的吸气肌训练(IMT)方案前4周最大吸气压力(PImax)的变化,并探讨哪种方法对脊髓损伤患者更有效。方法:数据来源于两项已发表的研究。参与者完成流动阻力IMT (F-IMT)在80%的每日PImax,每周7天(监督每周),或阈值IMT (T-IMT)在30-80%的每周PImax,每天两次,每周5天(监督每次)。每个试验的7名参与者按照训练依从性、脊髓损伤程度、损伤等级(A-C)和身高进行匹配。分析F-IMT组和T-IMT组在训练强度、呼吸量、吸气功以及第四周结束时基线的PImax变化方面的差异。结果:在4周内,两组间PImax的变化无差异(PImax的绝对变化(cmH2O): p = 0.456, PImax相对于基线的百分比变化:p = 0.128)。F-IMT参与者训练强度更高(中位数:77 cmH2O vs 22 cmH2O, p = 0.001, 80%基线vs 61%基线,p = 0.038),但比T-IMT参与者呼吸次数更少(840对1404次呼吸,p = 0.017)。两组之间的吸气功相似(64,789 vs 65,910 (% PImax ×呼吸次数),p = 0.535)。结论:我们的研究结果支持两种IMT方法,因为两组之间PImax和吸气功的变化相似。然而,每日高强度的间歇监督的F-IMT需要更少的呼吸和更少的参与者和治疗师的时间。未来的研究应检查最佳剂量和所需的监督,以达到增加PImax。
Comparison of two inspiratory muscle training protocols in people with spinal cord injury: a secondary analysis.
Study design/setting: Secondary analysis.
Objectives: To compare the change in maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax) over the first 4 weeks of two different inspiratory muscle training (IMT) protocols and explore if either method is more effective for people with spinal cord injury.
Methods: Data originated from two published studies. Participants completed flow-resistive IMT (F-IMT) at 80% daily PImax, 7 days/week (supervised weekly), or threshold IMT (T-IMT) at 30-80% weekly PImax, twice-daily, 5 days/week (supervised every session). Seven participants from each trial were matched by training adherence, level of spinal cord injury, impairment grade (A-C), and height. Differences between F-IMT and T-IMT groups in training intensity, breaths taken, inspiratory work, and the change in the PImax from baseline at the end of week four were analysed.
Results: Over 4 weeks, there was no difference in the change in PImax between groups (Absolute change in PImax (cmH2O): p = 0.456, Percent change in PImax relative to baseline: p = 0.128). F-IMT participants trained at a higher intensity (median: 77 vs 22 cmH2O, p = 0.001 and 80% baseline vs 61% baseline, p = 0.038) but took fewer breaths (840 vs 1404 breaths, p = 0.017) than T-IMT participants. Inspiratory work was similar between groups (64,789 vs 65,910 (% PImax × number of breaths), p = 0.535).
Conclusions: Our findings support both methods of IMT as the change in PImax and inspiratory work were similar between groups. However, daily high-intensity F-IMT with intermittent supervision, required fewer breaths and less participant and therapist time. Future studies should examine optimal dosage and supervision required to achieve increased PImax.