No abstract

Impairment of (inspiratory and expiratory) respiratory muscles is a common clinical finding, not only in patients with neuromuscular disease but also in patients with primary disease of the lung parenchyma or airways. Although such impairment is common, its recognition is usually delayed because its signs and symptoms are nonspecific and late. This delayed recognition, or even the lack thereof, occurs because the diagnostic tests used in the assessment of respiratory muscle strength are not widely known and available. There are various methods of assessing respiratory muscle strength during the inspiratory and expiratory phases. These methods are divided into two categories: volitional tests (which require patient understanding and cooperation); and non-volitional tests. Volitional tests, such as those that measure maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures, are the most commonly used because they are readily available. Non-volitional tests depend on magnetic stimulation of the phrenic nerve accompanied by the measurement of inspiratory mouth pressure, inspiratory esophageal pressure, or inspiratory transdiaphragmatic pressure. Another method that has come to be widely used is ultrasound imaging of the diaphragm. We believe that pulmonologists involved in the care of patients with respiratory diseases should be familiar with the tests used in order to assess respiratory muscle function.Therefore, the aim of the present article is to describe the advantages, disadvantages, procedures, and clinical applicability of the main tests used in the assessment of respiratory muscle strength.

Objective: To investigate the applicability of ultrasound imaging of the diaphragm in interstitial lung disease (ILD). Methods: Using ultrasound, we compared ILD patients and healthy volunteers (controls) in terms of diaphragmatic mobility during quiet and deep breathing; diaphragm thickness at functional residual capacity (FRC) and at total lung capacity (TLC); and the thickening fraction (TF, proportional diaphragm thickening from FRC to TLC). We also evaluated correlations between diaphragmatic dysfunction and lung function variables. Results: Between the ILD patients (n = 40) and the controls (n = 16), mean diaphragmatic mobility was comparable during quiet breathing, although it was significantly lower in the patients during deep breathing (4.5 ± 1.7 cm vs. 7.6 ± 1.4 cm; p < 0.01). The patients showed greater diaphragm thickness at FRC (p = 0.05), although, due to lower diaphragm thickness at TLC, they also showed a lower TF (p < 0.01). The FVC as a percentage of the predicted value (FVC%) correlated with diaphragmatic mobility (r = 0.73; p < 0.01), and an FVC% cut-off value of < 60% presented high sensitivity (92%) and specificity (81%) for indentifying decreased diaphragmatic mobility. Conclusions: Using ultrasound, we were able to show that diaphragmatic mobility and the TF were lower in ILD patients than in healthy controls, despite the greater diaphragm thickness at FRC in the former. Diaphragmatic mobility correlated with ILD functional severity, and an FVC% cut-off value of < 60% was found to be highly accurate for indentifying diaphragmatic dysfunction on ultrasound.