Mador M J, Kufel T J
Division of Pulmonary Medicine, State University of New York, Buffalo.
Chest. 1992 Dec;102(6):1767-73. doi: 10.1378/chest.102.6.1767.
Simple methods to diagnose inspiratory muscle fatigue in the clinical setting would be of considerable benefit. Inspiratory muscle relaxation rates are known to slow following induction of fatigue. Inspiratory muscle relaxation rates have been measured following a short sharp inspiratory effort against an occluded airway (sniffmouth) or through the unoccluded nostrils (sniffnostrils). Relaxation rates in the absence of fatigue are faster when sniffs are performed through the unoccluded nostrils. While both methods have been shown to be capable of detecting inspiratory muscle fatigue, there may be quantitative or qualitative differences between the two techniques in their ability to detect fatigue similar to the differences observed in the fresh state. Accordingly, we measured relaxation rates with the two sniff techniques in five healthy naive male subjects before and after induction of fatigue. Inspiratory muscle fatigue was induced by threshold loading at 80 percent of Pesmax until the subjects were unable to generate the target pressure. For those trials in which sniffnostrils were performed, the maximum relaxation rate from the esophageal pressure curve (MRRes) was significantly decreased following induction of fatigue in nine of ten trials, while the exponential time constant (taues) was significantly increased in all ten trials. In contrast, for those trials in which sniffmouth were performed, the MRRes was significantly decreased following induction of fatigue in only six of ten trials. Similarly, taues was significantly increased following induction of fatigue in only six of ten trials. In addition, the magnitude of change in the MRR or tau following induction of fatigue was quantitatively greater with sniffnostrils compared with sniffmouth. Similar findings were obtained when relaxation rates were measured from the diaphragmatic pressure tracing. In conclusion, changes in relaxation rate following induction of fatigue were quantitatively greater and more consistently observed when sniffs were performed through the unoccluded nostrils rather than against an occluded airway.
在临床环境中诊断吸气肌疲劳的简单方法将具有相当大的益处。已知疲劳诱导后吸气肌松弛率会减慢。吸气肌松弛率已在对抗阻塞气道(嗅口气)或通过未阻塞鼻孔(嗅鼻孔)进行短暂剧烈吸气努力后进行测量。在通过未阻塞鼻孔进行嗅气时,无疲劳状态下的松弛率更快。虽然这两种方法都已被证明能够检测吸气肌疲劳,但在检测疲劳的能力方面,这两种技术之间可能存在定量或定性差异,类似于在新鲜状态下观察到的差异。因此,我们在五名健康的未接触过相关测试的男性受试者中,在疲劳诱导前后用两种嗅气技术测量了松弛率。通过在Pesmax的80%进行阈值负荷诱导吸气肌疲劳,直到受试者无法产生目标压力。对于那些进行嗅鼻孔测试的试验,在十次试验中的九次中,疲劳诱导后食管压力曲线的最大松弛率(MRRes)显著降低,而在所有十次试验中指数时间常数(taues)显著增加。相比之下,对于那些进行嗅口气测试的试验,在十次试验中只有六次疲劳诱导后MRRes显著降低。同样,在十次试验中只有六次疲劳诱导后taues显著增加。此外,与嗅口气相比,嗅鼻孔时疲劳诱导后MRR或tau的变化幅度在定量上更大。当从膈肌压力描记图测量松弛率时也获得了类似的结果。总之,当通过未阻塞鼻孔而不是对抗阻塞气道进行嗅气时,疲劳诱导后松弛率的变化在定量上更大且更一致地观察到。