| Literature DB >> 32943611 |
Anne E Palermo1, Lawrence P Cahalin2, Mark S Nash3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Respiratory complications (RC) are a leading cause of death after spinal cord injury (SCI) due to compromised immune function and respiratory muscle weakness. Thus, individuals with SCI are at high risk of developing COVID-19 related RC. Results of a SCI clinical trial showed a supervised respiratory muscle training (RMT) program decreased risk of developing RC. The feasibility of conducting unsupervised RMT is not well documented. Four publications (n = 117) were identified in which unsupervised RMT was performed. Significant improvements in respiratory outcomes were reported in two studies: Maximal Inspiratory and Expiratory Pressure (MIP40% and MEP25%, respectively), Peak Expiratory Flow (PEF9%), seated and supine Forced Vital Capacity (FVC23% and 26%, respectively), and Peak Cough Flow (28%). This review and case report will attempt to show that an inspiratory muscle training (IMT) home exercise program (HEP) is feasible and may prepare the respiratory system for RC associated with COVID-19 in patients with SCI. CASEEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32943611 PMCID: PMC7494979 DOI: 10.1038/s41394-020-00337-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Spinal Cord Ser Cases ISSN: 2058-6124
Review table of respiratory muscle training interventions completed at home or mostly without supervision.
| Shin 2019 | Repecki 2019 | Gee 2019 | Leatham 2019 | Current Case | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location | Tertiary University Hospital | Community Program/HEP | HEP (most likely) | Community Program/HEP | HEP |
| ( | (104) inpatients with acute to chronic injury | (1) 29YOM, chronic SCI, C5-6 AIS B | (6) wheelchair rugby athletes | (10 but 4 dropped out: | (1) 23 YOM, chronic SCI, C3 AIS B |
| Intervention | Glossophrangeal breathing, IMT with incentive spirometer: 2 sets of 20 reps, ≥ 5 days/week (Coach 2 Device), Air Stacking with resuscitation bag | 6 weeks: SMX classes 1x/week 8 Weeks: SMX classes 2x/week All Weeks: IMT (device not reported) at home and Aerobic/Strength work 3x/wk | IMT and EMT 5 days /week with Powerlung device- 30 breaths per session | SMX classes 1x/week with IMT at home with goal of 30 breaths over 2 sessions/day, 5 days/week with Threshold device | Daily IMT with PrO2FIT device |
| Intensity | Not reported | Not reported | Started at ~60% of MIP/MEP and increased to ~80% | Initial training intensity: “[participants] can complete ten breaths without symptoms of hyperventilation.” | 80% of Max breath |
| Supervision | 1x/week by Physiotherapist | At home, unsupervised | No | Not reported | 1x/week by Physical Therapist |
| Duration | 4–8 weeks | 14 weeks | 6 weeks | 8 weeks | 4 weeks |
| Compliance | Not Reported | Participant did not turn in IMT training diary | Required at least 80% for participation. | 4 participants dropped out (2 in hospital, 2 did not complete IMT) | 96% |
| Actual: 98% | Not Reported | ||||
| Key Respiratory findings (as Pre/Post percent change) | No Respiratory Outcomes Reported | MIP: +40% | No Respiratory Outcomes Reported | MIP: +28% | |
| FVC in supine: +26% | MEP: +25% | SMIP: +26.5% | |||
| FVC in sitting: +23% | FVC: +1.6% ns | FVC: +11.7% | |||
| PCF: +28% | FEV1: +1.5% ns | FEV1: +8.3% | |||
| PEF: +9% | PEF: +14.8% | ||||
| MEP: +/− 0% |
SMX Spinal Mobility X, IMT inspiratory muscle training, EMT expiratory muscle training, MIP maximal inspiratory pressure, FVC forced vital capacity, FEV1 forced expiratory volume in one second, PEF peak expiratory flow, PCF peak cough flow, MEP maximal expiratory pressure.
PO1 respiratory performance throughout the study.
| MIP | SMIP | ID | FVC | FVC % predicted | FEV1 | FEV1 % predicted | PEF | PEF % predicted | MEP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 50 | 196 | 9.9 | 1.71 | 28% | 1.68 | 33% | 3.51 | 31% | 50 |
| Week 2 | 59 | 208 | 9.1 | 1.9 | 32% | 1.87 | 37% | 4.22 | 38% | 46 |
| Week 3 | 61 | 244 | 8.9 | 1.8 | 31% | 1.73 | 35% | 3.97 | 36% | 45 |
| Week 4 | 60 | 235 | 10.7 | 1.85 | 31% | 1.82 | 36% | 3.35 | 30% | 48 |
| Follow-up | 64 | 248 | 10 | 1.91 | 32% | 1.82 | 36% | 4.01 | 36% | 50 |
| Actual change | 14 | 52 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 4% | 0.14 | 3% | 0.5 | 5% | 0 |
| Percent change | 28% | 26.5% | 1% | 11.7% | 8.3% | 14.2% | 0% |
MIP maximal inspiratory pressure measured in cmH2O, SMIP sustained MIP measured in pressure time units, ID inspiratory duration measured in seconds, FVC forced vital capacity measured in liters, FVC % Predicted percent of predicted FVC based on NHANES criteria, FEV1 forced expiratory volume in one second measured in liters, FEV1 % Predicted percent of predicted FEV1 based on NHANES criteria, PEF peak expiratory flow measured in liters/second, PEF % Predicted percent of predicted PEF based on NHANES criteria, MEP maximal expiratory pressure.
Fig. 1User interface during Inspiratory Muscle Training with the PrO2FIT device and accompanying tablet application.
The FIT score is a measure created by the PrO2 manufacturer and was not investigated in this case study.
Fig. 2Total Power plotted throughout the training period.
The summed sustained maximal inspiratory pressures (SMIPs) created during a training session with 42 breaths with a target of 80% of a maximum effort baseline breath.
Fig. 3The change in MIP and SMIP throughout the training period.
Plots depicting the highest maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) (a) and sustained MIP (SMIP) (b) reached by P1 throughout each training session. These data may or may not include baseline measures.