体位对稳定型慢性阻塞性肺病患者吸气峰值流量的影响:一项观察性研究。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Roy A Pleasants, Ashley G Henderson, Valentina Bayer, Asif Shaikh, M Bradley Drummond
{"title":"体位对稳定型慢性阻塞性肺病患者吸气峰值流量的影响:一项观察性研究。","authors":"Roy A Pleasants, Ashley G Henderson, Valentina Bayer, Asif Shaikh, M Bradley Drummond","doi":"10.15326/jcopdf.2023.0460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We examined the effect of physical position on peak inspiratory flow (PIF) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using dry-powder inhalers (DPIs) with low‑medium internal resistance (R2) and/or high internal resistance (R5).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study in stable, ambulatory patients with spirometry-confirmed COPD evaluated the effect of 3 physical positions on maximal PIF achieved. Participants had PIFs of 30-90L/min (R5) or 60-90L/min (R2 DPIs) using the In-Check™ DIAL. PIF was measured in triplicate randomly in 3 positions that patients might be in while using their inhaler (standing, sitting, and semi-upright [supine position with the head of the bed at 45°, neck flexed forward]) against prescribed DPI resistance (R2/R5/both). Correlations between PIF and percentage decline in PIF between positions and differences in participant characteristics with >10% versus ≤10% PIF decline standing to semi-upright were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 76 participants (mean age, 65.2 years) had positional measurements; 59% reported seated DPI use at home. The mean (standard deviation) PIF standing, sitting, and semi-upright was 80.7 (13.4), 77.8 (14.3), and 74.0 (14.5) L/min, respectively, for R2 and 51.1 (9.52), 48.6 (9.84), and 45.8 (7.69) L/min, respectively, for R5 DPIs. PIF semi-upright was significantly lower than sitting and standing (R2; <i>P</i> < 0.0001) and standing (R5; <i>P</i>= 0.002). Approximately half of the participants had >10% decline in PIF from standing to semi-upright. Patient characteristics exceeding the 0.10 absolute standardized difference threshold with the decline in PIF for both the R2 and R5 DPIs were waist-to-hip ratio, modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score, and postbronchodilator percentage predicted forced vital capacity and PIF by spirometry.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PIF was significantly affected by physical position regardless of DPI resistance. PIF was highest when standing and lowest when semi-upright. We recommend that patients with COPD stand while using an R2 or R5 DPI. Where unfeasible, the position should be sitting rather than semi-upright. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04168775.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11075346/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect on Physical Position of Peak Inspiratory Flow in Stable COPD: An Observational Study.\",\"authors\":\"Roy A Pleasants, Ashley G Henderson, Valentina Bayer, Asif Shaikh, M Bradley Drummond\",\"doi\":\"10.15326/jcopdf.2023.0460\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We examined the effect of physical position on peak inspiratory flow (PIF) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using dry-powder inhalers (DPIs) with low‑medium internal resistance (R2) and/or high internal resistance (R5).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study in stable, ambulatory patients with spirometry-confirmed COPD evaluated the effect of 3 physical positions on maximal PIF achieved. Participants had PIFs of 30-90L/min (R5) or 60-90L/min (R2 DPIs) using the In-Check™ DIAL. PIF was measured in triplicate randomly in 3 positions that patients might be in while using their inhaler (standing, sitting, and semi-upright [supine position with the head of the bed at 45°, neck flexed forward]) against prescribed DPI resistance (R2/R5/both). Correlations between PIF and percentage decline in PIF between positions and differences in participant characteristics with >10% versus ≤10% PIF decline standing to semi-upright were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 76 participants (mean age, 65.2 years) had positional measurements; 59% reported seated DPI use at home. The mean (standard deviation) PIF standing, sitting, and semi-upright was 80.7 (13.4), 77.8 (14.3), and 74.0 (14.5) L/min, respectively, for R2 and 51.1 (9.52), 48.6 (9.84), and 45.8 (7.69) L/min, respectively, for R5 DPIs. PIF semi-upright was significantly lower than sitting and standing (R2; <i>P</i> < 0.0001) and standing (R5; <i>P</i>= 0.002). Approximately half of the participants had >10% decline in PIF from standing to semi-upright. Patient characteristics exceeding the 0.10 absolute standardized difference threshold with the decline in PIF for both the R2 and R5 DPIs were waist-to-hip ratio, modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score, and postbronchodilator percentage predicted forced vital capacity and PIF by spirometry.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PIF was significantly affected by physical position regardless of DPI resistance. PIF was highest when standing and lowest when semi-upright. We recommend that patients with COPD stand while using an R2 or R5 DPI. Where unfeasible, the position should be sitting rather than semi-upright. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04168775.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11075346/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15326/jcopdf.2023.0460\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15326/jcopdf.2023.0460","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:我们研究了使用中低(R2)和/或高(R5)内阻干粉吸入器(DPI)的慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)患者的体位对吸气峰值流量(PIF)的影响:这项前瞻性研究针对肺活量测定证实患有慢性阻塞性肺病的稳定期非卧床患者,评估了三种体位对实现最大 PIF 的影响。参与者使用 In-Check™ DIAL 的 PIF 为 30-90 L/min(R5)或 60-90 L/min(R2 DPI)。根据规定的 DPI 阻力(R2/R5/两者),在患者使用吸入器时可能处于的三种体位(站立、坐姿和半直立[仰卧位,床头呈 45°,颈部前屈]])下随机测量 PIF,一式三份。计算了不同体位之间 PIF 和 PIF 下降百分比之间的相关性,以及从站立到半直立时 PIF 下降大于 10% 与小于 10% 的参与者特征差异:76名参与者(平均年龄65.2岁)进行了体位测量;59%的参与者表示在家中使用坐姿DPI。R2 DPI 站立、坐姿和半直立时的 PIF 平均值(标准偏差)分别为 80.7 (13.4)、77.8 (14.3) 和 74.0 (14.5) 升/分钟,R5 DPI 则分别为 51.1 (9.52)、48.6 (9.84) 和 45.8 (7.69) 升/分钟。半卧位的 PIF 明显低于坐位和站位(R2;P < 0.0001)以及站位(R5;P = 0.002)。从站立到半直立,约有一半患者的 PIF 下降>10%。在 R2 和 R5 DPI 中,PIF 下降超过 0.10 绝对标准化差异阈值的患者特征包括腰臀比、修正的医学研究委员会呼吸困难评分、支气管扩张剂后%预测用力肺活量和肺活量:无论 DPI 阻力如何,PIF 都会受到体位的明显影响。站立时 PIF 最高,半直立时最低。我们建议慢性阻塞性肺病患者在使用 R2 或 R5 DPI 时站立。在不可行的情况下,体位应为坐姿而非半直立。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符 NCT04168775;试验注册日期:2019 年 11 月 19 日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect on Physical Position of Peak Inspiratory Flow in Stable COPD: An Observational Study.

Background: We examined the effect of physical position on peak inspiratory flow (PIF) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using dry-powder inhalers (DPIs) with low‑medium internal resistance (R2) and/or high internal resistance (R5).

Methods: This prospective study in stable, ambulatory patients with spirometry-confirmed COPD evaluated the effect of 3 physical positions on maximal PIF achieved. Participants had PIFs of 30-90L/min (R5) or 60-90L/min (R2 DPIs) using the In-Check™ DIAL. PIF was measured in triplicate randomly in 3 positions that patients might be in while using their inhaler (standing, sitting, and semi-upright [supine position with the head of the bed at 45°, neck flexed forward]) against prescribed DPI resistance (R2/R5/both). Correlations between PIF and percentage decline in PIF between positions and differences in participant characteristics with >10% versus ≤10% PIF decline standing to semi-upright were calculated.

Results: A total of 76 participants (mean age, 65.2 years) had positional measurements; 59% reported seated DPI use at home. The mean (standard deviation) PIF standing, sitting, and semi-upright was 80.7 (13.4), 77.8 (14.3), and 74.0 (14.5) L/min, respectively, for R2 and 51.1 (9.52), 48.6 (9.84), and 45.8 (7.69) L/min, respectively, for R5 DPIs. PIF semi-upright was significantly lower than sitting and standing (R2; P < 0.0001) and standing (R5; P= 0.002). Approximately half of the participants had >10% decline in PIF from standing to semi-upright. Patient characteristics exceeding the 0.10 absolute standardized difference threshold with the decline in PIF for both the R2 and R5 DPIs were waist-to-hip ratio, modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score, and postbronchodilator percentage predicted forced vital capacity and PIF by spirometry.

Conclusions: PIF was significantly affected by physical position regardless of DPI resistance. PIF was highest when standing and lowest when semi-upright. We recommend that patients with COPD stand while using an R2 or R5 DPI. Where unfeasible, the position should be sitting rather than semi-upright. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04168775.

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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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