IntroductionMaximal Inspiratory Pressure (MIP) is considered an effective method to estimate strength of inspiratory muscles, but still leads to false positive diagnosis. Although MIP assessment with unidirectional expiratory valve method has been used in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation, no previous studies investigated the application of this method in subjects without artificial airway.ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare the MIP values assessed by standard method (MIPsta) and by unidirectional expiratory valve method (MIPuni) in subjects with spontaneous breathing without artificial airway. MIPuni reproducibility was also evaluated.MethodsThis was a crossover design study, and 31 subjects performed MIPsta and MIPuni in a random order. MIPsta measured MIP maintaining negative pressure for at least one second after forceful expiration. MIPuni evaluated MIP using a unidirectional expiratory valve attached to a face mask and was conducted by two evaluators (A and B) at two moments (Tests 1 and 2) to determine interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility of MIP values. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC[2,1]) was used to determine intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility.ResultsThe mean values for MIPuni were 14.3% higher (-117.3 ± 24.8 cmH2O) than the mean values for MIPsta (-102.5 ± 23.9 cmH2O) (p<0.001). Interobserver reproducibility assessment showed very high correlation for Test 1 (ICC[2,1] = 0.91), and high correlation for Test 2 (ICC[2,1] = 0.88). The assessment of the intraobserver reproducibility showed high correlation for evaluator A (ICC[2,1] = 0.86) and evaluator B (ICC[2,1] = 0.77).ConclusionsMIPuni presented higher values when compared with MIPsta and proved to be reproducible in subjects with spontaneous breathing without artificial airway.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.