脊髓损伤患者两种吸气肌训练方案的比较:二次分析。

IF 0.7 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
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,&nbsp;Jane E Butler,&nbsp;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":null,"pages":null},"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,&nbsp;Jane E Butler,&nbsp;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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of two inspiratory muscle training protocols in people with spinal cord injury: a secondary analysis.

Comparison of two inspiratory muscle training protocols in people with spinal cord injury: a secondary analysis.

Comparison of two inspiratory muscle training protocols in people with spinal cord injury: a secondary analysis.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Spinal Cord Series and Cases
Spinal Cord Series and Cases Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
92
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信