Loading…
Approaches to Cough Peak Flow Measurement With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
Manually-assisted coughing and mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) are commonly used in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Few studies have compared cough peak flow (CPF) with manually-assisted coughing to other methods, such as MI-E + manually-assisted coughing. In addition, f...
Saved in:
Published in: | Respiratory care 2018-12, Vol.63 (12), p.1514-1519 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Manually-assisted coughing and mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) are commonly used in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Few studies have compared cough peak flow (CPF) with manually-assisted coughing to other methods, such as MI-E + manually-assisted coughing. In addition, few studies have reported the reliability of the measured CPF values. This study aimed to compare CPF with different cough-assistance methods and to examine the reliability of CPF data.
The study included 12 subjects with DMD (mean age, 34 ± 8 y). CPF, CPF + manually-assisted coughing (assisted CPF), maximum insufflation capacity (MIC) + CPF (MIC-CPF), MIC + manually-assisted coughing (MIC+assisted CPF), MI-E (MI-E-CPF), and MI-E + assisted CPF were measured. A spirometer was used to compare CPF measurements obtained with each of the cough-assist techniques. The reliability of the measured CPF values was analyzed using Bland-Altman analysis.
CPF was 59 ± 34 L/min, assisted CPF was 113 ± 32 L/min, MIC-CPF was 170 ± 30 L/min, MIC+assisted CPF was 224 ± 62 L/min, MI-E-CPF was 199 ± 40 L/min, and MI-E + assisted CPF was 240 ± 38 L/min. A fixed and proportional bias was found in the CPF measurements made with the peak flow meter and the spirometer. The average 95% CI in the difference between peak flow meter, MI-E, and CPF obtained using the spirometer were -7.45 to -1.95 and -1.45 to 4.95, respectively. Test for correlation was r = 0.54 (
< .001) for CPF (peak flow meter) and CPF (spirometer) and r = 0.17 (
= .17) in CPF (MI-E) and CPF (spirometer), respectively.
MI-E + assisted CPF was the highest. The CPF measured with the peak flow meter suggested underestimation. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0020-1324 1943-3654 |
DOI: | 10.4187/respcare.06124 |