| Literature DB >> 25586938 |
M Baz1, G S Haji2, A Menzies-Gow2, R J Tanner3, N S Hopkinson2, M I Polkey2, J H Hull2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with COPD commonly exhibit pursed-lip breathing during exercise, a strategy that, by increasing intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure, may optimise lung mechanics and exercise tolerance. A similar role for laryngeal narrowing in modulating exercise airways resistance and the respiratory cycle volume-time course is postulated, yet remains unstudied in COPD. The aim of this study was to assess the characteristics of laryngeal narrowing and its role in exercise intolerance and dynamic hyperinflation in COPD.Entities:
Keywords: COPD ÀÜ Mechanisms; Exercise; Respiratory Measurement
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25586938 PMCID: PMC4345987 DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205940
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Thorax ISSN: 0040-6376 Impact factor: 9.139
Figure 1Example cases illustrating dynamic expiratory laryngeal narrowing and method for calculation of glottic and supra-glottic narrowing ratio.
Subject characteristics and pulmonary function
| Healthy | Mild–mod COPD | Severe COPD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 60 (1) | 61 (2) | 60 (3) |
| Sex (M:F) | 6:5 | 3:5 | 6:5 |
| Height (cm) | 172 (3) | 166 (3) | 168 (3) |
| Weight (kg) | 75 (5) | 84 (6) | 69 (3) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25 (1) | 30± (2) | 24 (1)† |
| CAT (of/40) | 4 (0–9) | 12 (4–24)* | 21 (11–31)**† |
| Pulmonary function | |||
| FEV1 (L) | 3.1 (0.3) | 1.9 (0.2)* | 0.9 (0.1)**† |
| FEV1 (%pred) | 104 (5) | 72 (3)** | 32 (2)**†† |
| FVC (L) | 4.2 (0.3) | 3.1 (0.4) | 2.7 (0.2)* |
| FVC (%pred) | 114 (4) | 96 (4)* | 79 (5)** |
| FEV1/FVC | 74 (2) | 62 (3)* | 32 (2)**†† |
| TLC (L) | 6.9 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.8) | 7.8 (0.3) |
| TLC (%pred) | 110 (3) | 113 (5) | 138 (3)**† |
| RV (L) | 2.4 (0.2) | 3.0 (0.3) | 4.4 (0.3)**† |
| RV (%pred) | 109 (5) | 137 (13) | 203 (7.5)**†† |
| RV/TLC (%) | 35 (2) | 46 (4) | 56 (3)** |
| TLCOc (%pred) | 98 (6) | 74 (5)* | 43 (4)**† |
Data shown as mean (SEM) or median (range). *p<0.05, **p<0.01 from healthy, †p<0.05, ††p<0.01 from mild–mod COPD. Note, lung volume and gas transfer data available in 21 subjects.
BMI, body mass index; CAT, COPD assessment tool; RV, residual volume; TLC, total lung capacity; TLCOc, transfer coefficient for carbon monoxide corrected for haemoglobin.
Selected parameters at peak exercise
| Healthy | Mild–mod COPD (n=8) | Severe COPD | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stopped 2° breathing; n (%) | 2 (18) | 5 (63) | 10 (91) |
| Dyspnoea Borg (×/10) | 3 (1–5) | 4 (2–5) | 4 (3–5) |
| Load (W) | 133 (15) | 82 (13)* | 44 (8)** |
| VO2 (L/min) | 1.85 (0.19) | 1.31 (0.14)* | 0.83 (0.15)** |
| VO2 (mL/min/kg) | 24.6 (1.8) | 15.9 (1.7)** | 12.0 (0.4)** |
| VO2% predicted | 100 (6) | 77 (5)* | 49 (4)**†† |
| HR (b/m) | 147 (7) | 131 (7) | 107 (4)**† |
| HR reserve (%) | 8 (5) | 18 (4) | 33 (3)**† |
| VE (L/min) | 66 (10) | 46 (6) | 28 (2)** |
| BR (%) | 49 (5) | 41 (3) | 16 (6)**†† |
| SpO2 (%) | 98 (0) | 98 (1) | 94 (1)**†† |
| VT (L) | 2.15 (0.24) | 1.56 (0.22) | 1.11 (0.08)** |
| TI/TTot | 0.45 (0.07) | 0.41 (0.02)* | 0.36 (0.01)**† |
| IC (L) | 3.44 (0.27) | 2.52 (0.28)* | 1.99 (0.15)** |
| Delta IC (%IC rest) | −0.35 (2.90) | 12.10 (3.54) | 15.26 (4.08)** |
| DHI | −0.01 (0.06) | 0.46 (0.18) | 0.96 (0.27)** |
Data shown as mean (SEM) or median (range). *p<0.05, **p<0.01 from healthy, †p<0.05, ††p<0.01 from mild–mod COPD. Operational lung volume data available in 7 patients with mild–moderate COPD and 10 patients with severe COPD.
BR, breathing reserve; DHI, dynamic hyperinflation index; HR, heart rate; IC, inspiratory capacity; SpO2, peripheral oxygen saturation; TI/TTOT, respiratory duty cycle; VE, minute ventilation; VO2, oxygen consumption; VT, tidal volume.
Figure 2Laryngeal narrowing ratio at rest and peak exercise at glottic (A) and supraglottic (B) level.
Laryngeal narrowing ratios at rest and peak exercise
| Glottic narrowing ratio | Supra-glottic narrowing ratio | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy | Mild–mod COPD | Severe COPD | Healthy | Mild–mod COPD | Severe COPD | |
| Rest | 0.14 (0.05) | 0.43 (0.09)* | 0.63(0.07)** | 0.14 (0.03) | 0.31 (0.10) | 0.36 (0.05)* † |
| Exercise | 0.16 (0.08) | 0.35 (0.08) | 0.64 (0.05)**† | 0.10 (0.05) | 0.20 (0.06) | 0.43 (0.07)**† |
| Change | 0.02 (0.09) | −0.09 (0.05) | −0.01 (0.07) | −0.04 (0.07) | −0.11 (0.08) | −0.07 (0.07) |
Data shown as mean (SEM). *p<0.05, **p<0.01 from healthy, †p<0.05, ††p<0.01 from mild–mod COPD.
Figure 3Relationship between FEV1% predicted and glottic narrowing ratio at rest (A) and peak exercise (B), and supra-glottic narrowing ratio at rest (C) and peak exercise (D).
Figure 4Relationship between respiratory duty cycle (TI/TTOT) and glottic narrowing ratio at rest (A) and peak exercise (B).
Figure 5Relationship between peak glottic narrowing ratio (GNR) and dynamic hyperinflation index (DHI) in controls (•), patients with mild–moderate COPD (□) and patients with severe COPD (▪). Data are presented as mean values with error bars representing 1 SEM. *p<0.05 from controls.