Parreira V F, Tomich G M, Britto R R, Sampaio R F
Departamento de Fisioterapia, Escola de Educação Física, Fisioterapia e Terapia Ocupacional, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.
Braz J Med Biol Res. 2005 Jul;38(7):1105-12. doi: 10.1590/s0100-879x2005000700014. Epub 2005 Jul 4.
The objective of the present study was to evaluate incentive spirometers using volume- (Coach and Voldyne) and flow-oriented (Triflo II and Respirex) devices. Sixteen healthy subjects, 24 +/- 4 years, 62 +/- 12 kg, were studied. Respiratory variables were obtained by respiratory inductive plethysmography, with subjects in a semi-reclined position (45 masculine). Tidal volume, respiratory frequency, minute ventilation, inspiratory duty cycle, mean inspiratory flow, and thoracoabdominal motion were measured. Statistical analysis was performed with Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, t-test and ANOVA. Comparison between the Coach and Voldyne devices showed that larger values of tidal volume (1035 +/- 268 vs 947 +/- 268 ml, P = 0.02) and minute ventilation (9.07 +/- 3.61 vs 7.49 +/- 2.58 l/min, P = 0.01) were reached with Voldyne, whereas no significant differences in respiratory frequency were observed (7.85 +/- 1.24 vs 8.57 +/- 1.89 bpm). Comparison between flow-oriented devices showed larger values of inspiratory duty cycle and lower mean inspiratory flow with Triflo II (0.35 +/- 0.05 vs 0.32 +/- 0.05 ml/s, P = 0.00, and 531 +/- 137 vs 606 +/- 167 ml/s, P = 0.00, respectively). Abdominal motion was larger (P < 0.05) during the use of volume-oriented devices compared to flow-oriented devices (52 +/- 11% for Coach and 50 +/- 9% for Voldyne; 43 +/- 13% for Triflo II and 44 +/- 14% for Respirex). We observed that significantly higher tidal volume associated with low respiratory frequency was reached with Voldyne, and that there was a larger abdominal displacement with volume-oriented devices.
本研究的目的是评估容积式(Coach和Voldyne)和流量式(Triflo II和Respirex)激励肺活量计。对16名健康受试者进行了研究,年龄24±4岁,体重62±12千克。通过呼吸感应体积描记法获取呼吸变量,受试者处于半卧位(45°)。测量潮气量、呼吸频率、分钟通气量、吸气占空比、平均吸气流量和胸腹运动。采用Kolmogorov-Smirnov检验、t检验和方差分析进行统计分析。Coach和Voldyne设备之间的比较表明,Voldyne的潮气量(1035±268 vs 947±268毫升,P = 0.02)和分钟通气量(9.07±3.61 vs 7.49±2.58升/分钟,P = 0.01)值更大,而呼吸频率未观察到显著差异(7.85±1.24 vs 8.57±1.89次/分钟)。流量式设备之间的比较表明,Triflo II的吸气占空比值更大,平均吸气流量更低(分别为0.35±0.05 vs 0.32±0.05毫升/秒,P = 0.00,以及531±137 vs 606±167毫升/秒,P = 0.00)。与流量式设备相比,使用容积式设备时腹部运动更大(P < 0.05)(Coach为52±11%,Voldyne为50±9%;Triflo II为43±13%,Respirex为44±14%)。我们观察到,Voldyne达到了与低呼吸频率相关的显著更高的潮气量,并且容积式设备的腹部位移更大。