Variations of maximal inspiratory pressure and maximal expiratory pressure from residual functional capacity or total pulmonary capacity and residual volume in normal individuals

DOI: 10.15343/0104-7809.200832.2.7

Abstract

The aim of this work was to verify if there exist variations in the two distinct methods that assist the evaluation of maximal inspiratory pressure
(PImax) and maximal expiratory pressure (PEmax). We enlisted 41 voluntary individuals, both male and female, having as inclusion criteria age (20-59
years), body mass index (18-29,9 kg/m2) and exclusion criteria be a chronic smoker, having lung illnesses, thoracic infections of superior and inferior
aerial ways in the last year, neuromuscular illnesses, deformities, and BMI > 30 kg/m2. The research was approved by the Committee of Ethics of the
University Center São Camilo; the volunteers had signed the term of free and informed consent. We used a Gerar manuvacuometer, bocals, tracheas and
plastic nasal clamps. We observe in results of the comparison of averages of the different methods p < 0.001 both for PImax and PEmax. PImax average
from VR and CRF was, respectively, 96.10 and 78.78 cm H2O, with a standard deviation of respectively 32.70 and 27.50 cm H2O. Between Pemax, from
CPT and CRF, it was noticed, respectively, a average of 115.37 and 93.90 cm H2O, with a standard deviation of, respectively, 37.95 and 33.08 cm H2O.
There was a significant difference in PImax values from CRF and VR and those of PEmax from CRF and CPT, and the method based on CRF underestimates
PImax in relation to the measure done with VR, as well as underestimates PEmax in relation to CPT. We conclude that a method cannot substitute the
other without loss of information.