We measured pressures and power of diaphragm, rib cage, and abdominal muscles during quiet breathing (QB) and exercise at 0, 30, 50, and 70% maximum workload (Wmax) in five men. By three-dimensional tracking of 86 chest wall markers, we calculated the volumes of lung- and diaphragm-apposed rib cage compartments (Vrc,p and Vrc,a, respectively) and the abdomen (Vab). End-inspiratory lung volume increased with percentage of Wmax as a result of an increase in Vrc,p and Vrc,a. End-expiratory lung volume decreased as a result of a decrease in Vab. DeltaVrc,a/DeltaVab was constant and independent of Wmax. Thus we used DeltaVab/time as an index of diaphragm velocity of shortening. From QB to 70% Wmax, diaphragmatic pressure (Pdi) increased approximately 2-fold, diaphragm velocity of shortening 6.5-fold, and diaphragm workload 13-fold. Abdominal muscle pressure was approximately 0 during QB but was equal to and 180 degrees out of phase with rib cage muscle pressure at all percent Wmax. Rib cage muscle pressure and abdominal muscle pressure were greater than Pdi, but the ratios of these pressures were constant. There was a gradual inspiratory relaxation of abdominal muscles, causing abdominal pressure to fall, which minimized Pdi and decreased the expiratory action of the abdominal muscles on Vrc,a gradually, minimizing rib cage distortions. We conclude that from QB to 0% Wmax there is a switch in respiratory muscle control, with immediate recruitment of rib cage and abdominal muscles. Thereafter, a simple mechanism that increases drive equally to all three muscle groups, with drive to abdominal and rib cage muscles 180 degrees out of phase, allows the diaphragm to contract quasi-isotonically and act as a flow generator, while rib cage and abdominal muscles develop the pressures to displace the rib cage and abdomen, respectively. This acts to equalize the pressures acting on both rib cage compartments, minimizing rib cage distortion.

To understand how externally applied expiratory flow limitation (EFL) leads to impaired exercise performance and dyspnea, we studied six healthy males during control incremental exercise to exhaustion (C) and with EFL at approximately 1. We measured volume at the mouth (Vm), esophageal, gastric and transdiaphragmatic (Pdi) pressures, maximal exercise power (W(max)) and the difference (Delta) in Borg scale ratings of breathlessness between C and EFL exercise. Optoelectronic plethysmography measured chest wall and lung volume (VL). From Campbell diagrams, we measured alveolar (PA) and expiratory muscle (Pmus) pressures, and from Pdi and abdominal motion, an index of diaphragmatic power (W(di)). Four subjects hyperinflated and two did not. EFL limited performance equally to 65% W(max) with Borg = 9-10 in both. At EFL W(max), inspiratory time (TI) was 0.66s +/- 0.08, expiratory time (TE) 2.12 +/- 0.26 s, Pmus approximately 40 cmH2O and DeltaVL-DeltaVm = 488.7 +/- 74.1 ml. From PA and VL, we calculated compressed gas volume (VC) = 163.0 +/- 4.6 ml. The difference, DeltaVL-DeltaVm-VC (estimated blood volume shift) was 326 ml +/- 66 or 7.2 ml/cmH2O PA. The high Pmus and long TE mimicked a Valsalva maneuver from which the short TI did not allow recovery. Multiple stepwise linear regression revealed that the difference between C and EFL Pmus accounted for 70.3% of the variance in DeltaBorg. DeltaW(di) added 12.5%. We conclude that high expiratory pressures cause severe dyspnea and the possibility of adverse circulatory events, both of which would impair exercise performance.

During exercise, large pleural, abdominal, and transdiaphragmatic pressure swings might produce substantial rib cage (RC) distortions. We used a three-compartment chest wall model (J. Appl. Physiol. 72: 1338-1347, 1992) to measure distortions of lung- and diaphragm-apposed RC compartments (RCp and RCa) along with pleural and abdominal pressures in five normal men. RCp and RCa volumes were calculated from three-dimensional locations of 86 markers on the chest wall, and the undistorted (relaxation) RC configuration was measured. Compliances of RCp and RCa measured during phrenic stimulation against a closed airway were 20 and 0%, respectively, of their values during relaxation. There was marked RC distortion. Thus nonuniform distribution of pressures distorts the RC and markedly stiffens it. However, during steady-state ergometer exercise at 0, 30, 50, and 70% of maximum workload, RC distortions were small because of a coordinated action of respiratory muscles, so that net pressures acting on RCp and RCa were nearly the same throughout the respiratory cycle. This maximizes RC compliance and minimizes the work of RC displacement. During quiet breathing, plots of RCa volume vs. abdominal pressure were to the right of the relaxation curve, indicating an expiratory action on RCa. We attribute this to passive stretching of abdominal muscles, which more than counterbalances the insertional component of transdiaphragmatic pressure.

Background: Recent studies have shown weak associations among FEV 1 , bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR), sputum eosinophils, and sputum eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), suggesting that they are nonoverlapping quantities. The statistical method of factor analysis enables reduction of many parameters that characterize the disease to a few independent factors, with each factor grouping associated parameters. Objective: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate, by using factor analysis, that reversible airway obstruction, BHR, and eosinophilic inflammation of the bronchial tree, as assessed by cytologic and biochemical analysis of sputum, may be considered separate dimensions that characterize chronic bronchial asthma. Methods: Ninety-nine clinically stable patients with a previous diagnosis of asthma underwent spirometry, sputum induction, and histamine inhalation tests. Results: Most patients were nonobstructed (FEV 1 , 91% ± 20%); a low level of bronchial reversibility (FEV 1 increase after β 2 -agonist, 7.8% ± 9.2%) and BHR (histamine PC 20 FEV 1 geometric mean, 0.98 mg/mL) were found. Sputum eosinophil differential count (12.4% ± 17.7%) and sputum ECP (1305 ± 3072 µg/mL) were in the normal range of our laboratory in 38 and 22 patients, respectively. Factor analysis selected 3 different factors, explaining 74.8% of variability. Measurements of airway function and age loaded on factor I, PC 20 FEV 1 and β 2 -response loaded on factor II, and sputum ECP and eosinophils loaded on factor III. Additional post hoc factor analyses provided similar results when the sample was divided into 2 subgroups by randomization, presence of airway obstruction, degree of BHR, percentage of sputum eosinophils, or concentration of sputum ECP. Conclusions: We conclude that airway function, baseline BHR, and airway inflammation may be considered separate dimensions in the description of chronic asthma. Such evidence supports the utility of routine measurement of all these dimensions. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:232-7.)