Kotajima Fumiya, Yatomi Masakiyo, Hisada Takeshi
Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Gunma University Graduate School of Health Sciences, Maebashi, Japan.
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Japan.
Ann Rehabil Med. 2023 Apr;47(2):118-128. doi: 10.5535/arm.22103. Epub 2023 Jan 30.
To define the effect of the inspiratory method and cough timing on peak cough flow (PCF).
We investigated the effect of measurement conditions on PCF in healthy subjects (n=10). We then compared obstructive and restrictive pulmonary diseases (n=20) to assess for similar results in respiratory diseases. The PCF was measured under four conditions: before coughing, without maneuver 1 or with maneuver 2 a temporary respiratory pause (4-6 seconds) after rapid inspiration, and without maneuver 3 or with maneuver 4 a temporary respiratory pause after slow inspiration. After the measurements were completed, the PCF between the four conditions was compared for each subject group, and the effect size was calculated.
PCF of maneuvers 1 and 3 were significantly higher than maneuver 4 in healthy subjects (476.34±102.05 L/min and 463.44±107.14 L/min vs. 429.54±116.83 L/min, p<0.01 and p<0.05, respectively) and patients with restrictive pulmonary disease (381.96±145.31 L/min, 354.60±157.36 L/min vs. 296.94±137.49 L/min, p<0.01 and p<0.05, respectively). In obstructive pulmonary disease, maneuver 1 was significantly higher than maneuver 4 (327.42±154.73 L/min vs. 279.48±141.10 L/min, p<0.05). The largest effect sizes were shown by maneuvers 4 and 1.
PCF depends on changes in inspiratory speed before coughing and on temporary respiratory pauses after maximal inspiration. It will become necessary to unify the measurement methods for coughing strength and present appropriate coughing methods.
确定吸气方法和咳嗽时机对峰值咳嗽流量(PCF)的影响。
我们研究了测量条件对健康受试者(n = 10)PCF的影响。然后比较了阻塞性和限制性肺部疾病患者(n = 20),以评估在呼吸系统疾病中是否有类似结果。在四种条件下测量PCF:咳嗽前、无操作1或有操作2(快速吸气后短暂呼吸暂停(4 - 6秒))、无操作3或有操作4(缓慢吸气后短暂呼吸暂停)。测量完成后,比较每个受试者组四种条件下的PCF,并计算效应大小。
在健康受试者中,操作1和操作3的PCF显著高于操作4(分别为476.34±102.05升/分钟和463.44±107.14升/分钟,对比429.54±116.83升/分钟,p<0.01和p<0.05),在限制性肺部疾病患者中也是如此(分别为381.96±145.31升/分钟、354.60±157.36升/分钟,对比296.94±137.49升/分钟,p<0.01和p<0.05)。在阻塞性肺部疾病中,操作1显著高于操作4(327.42±154.73升/分钟对比279.48±141.10升/分钟,p<0.05)。效应大小最大的是操作4和操作1。
PCF取决于咳嗽前吸气速度的变化以及最大吸气后的短暂呼吸暂停。有必要统一咳嗽强度的测量方法并提出合适的咳嗽方法。