Anamaria Fleig Mayer1, Manuela Karloh2, Karoliny Dos Santos3, Cintia Laura Pereira de Araujo4, Aline Almeida Gulart5. 1. Núcleo de Assistência, Ensino e Pesquisa em Reabilitação Pulmonar, Centro de Ciências da Saúde e do Esporte (CEFID), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia, Centro de Ciências da Saúde e do Esporte (CEFID), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil. Electronic address: anamaria.mayer@udesc.br. 2. Núcleo de Assistência, Ensino e Pesquisa em Reabilitação Pulmonar, Centro de Ciências da Saúde e do Esporte (CEFID), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia, Centro de Ciências da Saúde e do Esporte (CEFID), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil. Electronic address: manukarloh@gmail.com. 3. Núcleo de Assistência, Ensino e Pesquisa em Reabilitação Pulmonar, Centro de Ciências da Saúde e do Esporte (CEFID), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia, Centro de Ciências da Saúde e do Esporte (CEFID), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil. Electronic address: fisio.karoliny@gmail.com. 4. Núcleo de Assistência, Ensino e Pesquisa em Reabilitação Pulmonar, Centro de Ciências da Saúde e do Esporte (CEFID), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia, Centro de Ciências da Saúde e do Esporte (CEFID), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil. Electronic address: cintia_lpa@yahoo.com.br. 5. Núcleo de Assistência, Ensino e Pesquisa em Reabilitação Pulmonar, Centro de Ciências da Saúde e do Esporte (CEFID), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia, Centro de Ciências da Saúde e do Esporte (CEFID), Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil. Electronic address: aline.gulart@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pursed-lips breathing (PLB) is a ventilatory strategy frequently adopted spontaneously by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to relieve dyspnoea, and its practice is widely taught as a respiratory strategy to increase exercise tolerance. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of acute use of PLB in exercise performance, dyspnoea, ventilatory parameters and oxygen saturation during exercise in patients with COPD. DATA SOURCES: PEDro, EMBASE, MEDLINE via OVID, and EBSCO up to May 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Crossover, randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that studied PLB as a ventilatory strategy for patients with COPD during exercise. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction included background characteristics of the research reports; participant characteristics; description of the analyzed variables and corresponding instruments; exercise protocol; exercise performance; outcomes and corresponding results; data for "responder" and "non-responder" outcomes. RESULTS: Eight studies were selected. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of PLB during exercise reduces minute ventilation and respiratory rate compared to exercise without PLB. No statistically significant differences were found in the 6-minute walk test distance. LIMITATIONS: The sample characteristics, exercise protocols, and criteria for "responders" and "non-responders" differed among studies. CONCLUSION: PLB is effective in reducing minute ventilation and respiratory rate during exercise in patients with COPD. It is still unclear who responds to PLB and how these responders benefit from its use. Further studies with better methodological quality are necessary to understand the implications of its acute use on the functional capacity and symptoms of patients with COPD. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42015025903.
BACKGROUND: Pursed-lips breathing (PLB) is a ventilatory strategy frequently adopted spontaneously by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to relieve dyspnoea, and its practice is widely taught as a respiratory strategy to increase exercise tolerance. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of acute use of PLB in exercise performance, dyspnoea, ventilatory parameters and oxygen saturation during exercise in patients with COPD. DATA SOURCES: PEDro, EMBASE, MEDLINE via OVID, and EBSCO up to May 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Crossover, randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that studied PLB as a ventilatory strategy for patients with COPD during exercise. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction included background characteristics of the research reports; participant characteristics; description of the analyzed variables and corresponding instruments; exercise protocol; exercise performance; outcomes and corresponding results; data for "responder" and "non-responder" outcomes. RESULTS: Eight studies were selected. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of PLB during exercise reduces minute ventilation and respiratory rate compared to exercise without PLB. No statistically significant differences were found in the 6-minute walk test distance. LIMITATIONS: The sample characteristics, exercise protocols, and criteria for "responders" and "non-responders" differed among studies. CONCLUSION: PLB is effective in reducing minute ventilation and respiratory rate during exercise in patients with COPD. It is still unclear who responds to PLB and how these responders benefit from its use. Further studies with better methodological quality are necessary to understand the implications of its acute use on the functional capacity and symptoms of patients with COPD. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42015025903.
Authors: Tina J Wang; Brian Chau; Mickey Lui; Giang-Tuyet Lam; Nancy Lin; Sarah Humbert Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 3.412