| Literature DB >> 35411199 |
Sisay Deme1, Dheeraj Lamba1, Abayneh Alamer2, Haimanot Melese2, Sileshi Ayhualem3, Dechassa Imeru4, Tsegereda Abebe5.
Abstract
Background: Stroke is the most common leading cause of mortality and related morbidities worldwide. After stroke, the motor function of extremities and spinal muscles is significantly impairment, but not only this, it also has attributable factors leading to respiratory dysfunction. Nevertheless, to the extent of the authors' knowledge, there is a dearth of conclusive studies which examined the effectiveness of RMT on muscle strength, pulmonary function, and respiratory complications of individuals after stroke. Objective: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training on respiratory muscle strength, pulmonary function, and respiratory complications in patients after stroke.Entities:
Keywords: randomized or quasi-randomized trials and respiratory muscle training; respiratory muscle training; stroke; systematic review
Year: 2022 PMID: 35411199 PMCID: PMC8994559 DOI: 10.2147/DNND.S348736
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Degener Neurol Neuromuscul Dis ISSN: 1179-9900
Summary of Included Studies
| Author/Year | Characteristics of Participants | Outcome Measures | Interventions | Results | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sutbeyaz. ST et al 2010 | 45 total participants: | -FAC | -EG: diaphragmatic breathing combined with pursed-lip breathing were given for 15 minutes, five days a week, 6 weeks durations. | - Pulmonary function measures had no significant difference (FVC (P=0.41), VC (P=0.94), FEV1 (P=0.96), FEF 25–75% (P=0.28) and MVV (P=0.23)) in the BRT group compared with baseline and the control group. | -Risk of stroke and various forms of cardiovascular disease and stroke mortality might be reduced by |
| Yoo H-J, Pyun S-B 2018 | 40 total participants: EG (n=20), CG (n=20) | -FVC | -EG: bedside respiratory muscle training and conventional stroke rehabilitation program was given for 30 minutes, twice a day 5 days a week, for 3 weeks. | -The effect of respiratory muscle training on FEV1 (P= 0.027) and peak flow (P=0.004) were statistically significant. | - Significant short-term effects of bedside respiratory muscle training in patients with stroke were observed. |
| de Menezes KKP et al, 2019 | -38 total participants: EG (n=19), CG (n=19) | -MIP | -EG: received high intensity home based respiratory muscle training for 40 min/day, 7 times a week over 8 weeks. | The result showed that significant changes were observed in MIP (P<0.001), MEP (P<. 001) and inspiratory endurance (P<0.001). Significant between-group differences were also found for dyspnea at post-intervention (P<0.01) and follow-up (P<0.05) measures. | High-intensity home-based respiratory muscle training was effective in increasing strength and endurance of the respiratory muscles |
| Guillén-Solà, et al, 2017 | -62 total participants: SST (n=21), IEMT (n=20), NMES (n=21) | -Penetration-aspiration scale, | -Group I: received SST (3 hours per day, 5 days a week, for 3 weeks) | - inspiratory and expiratory muscle training showed significant improvement in PImax (p=0.015) and PEmax (P=0.044) at 3 week intervention and no significant change was observed at 3 months post-intervention and efficacy signs improved for inspiratory and expiratory muscle training (p=0.037) at 3 months post-intervention. | - Adding IEMT to SST was an effective, feasible, and safe approach that improved respiratory |
| Messaggi-Sartor, M et al 2015 | -Total 109 participants: IEMT (n = 56) and sham (n = 53) | -PI max | - EG: received CPT and IEMT of 5 sets of 10 repetitions, twice a day, 5 days per week for 3 weeks duration | -IEMT induced a greater change on PImax (p=0.002) and PEmax (p=0.02) in comparison to the sham group. Respiratory complications were frequently observed in the control group | -IEMT appears to be a useful tool to improve respiratory muscle strength. Fewer respiratory complications at 6 months in the intervention group suggest |
| Britto, R.R et al 2011 | -Total 18 participants: | -MIP | EG: received home-based training, with resistance adjusted biweekly to 30% of MIP 30 minutes a day 5 times a week for 8 weeks. | -There were significant between-group differences | -IMT training resulted in benefits |
| Kulnik, S.T et al 2015 | -Total of 78 participants: (EG1;27), (EG2;26), (CG;25) | -PECF | -RMT consisted of 5 sets of 10 breaths each with 1-minute rests between sets. Resistance was set at 50% of maximal inspiratory (PImax) or expiratory (PEmax) mouth pressure for inspiratory or expiratory training, respectively. | There were significant improvements in the mean maximal inspiratory (14 cmH2O; P<0.0001) and expiratory (15 cmH2O; P<0.0001) between baseline and 28 days in all groups. There were no between-group differences regarding respiratory muscle training and incidence of pneumonia. | -Respiratory muscle function and cough flow improved with time after acute stroke. Additional inspiratory or |
Abbreviations: BBS, Berg Balance Scale; BI, Barthel Index; BRT, breathing retraining; CG, control group; EG, experimental group; ET, expiratory training; FAC, Functional Ambulation Categories; FEF 25–75%, forced expiratory flow rate 25–75%; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; FVC, forced vital capacity; IG, intervention group; IEMT, inspiratory and expiratory muscle training; IME, inspiratory muscular endurance; IMT, inspiratory muscle training; IT, inspiratory training; MEP, maximum expiratory pressure; MIP, maximum inspiratory pressure; MVV, maximum voluntary ventilation; NHP, Nottingham Health Profile; NMES, neuromuscular electrical stimulation; PECF, peak expiratory cough flow; PEF, peak expiratory flow rate; PEmax, maximal expiratory pressure; PImax, maximal inspiratory pressure; QOL, quality of life; RMTG, respiratory muscle training group; VC, vital capacity; SST, standard swallow therapy.
PEdro Scores of Each RCT
| No | PEDro Scale Item | Sutbeyaz. ST et al 2010 | Yoo H-J, Pyun S-B 2018 | de Menezes KKP et al 2019 | Guillén-Solà, A et al 2017 | Messaggi-Sartor, M et al 2015 | Britto, R.R et al 2011 | Kulnik, S.T et al 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Eligibility | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| 2. | Random allocation | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| 3. | Concealed allocation | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES | YES | YES |
| 4. | Baseline comparability | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| 5. | Blind participant | NO | NO | YES | NO | YES | NO | YES |
| 6. | Blind therapist | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| 7. | Blind assessor | YES | NO | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| 8. | Adequate follow up | YES | YES | YES | NO | NO | YES | NO |
| 9. | Intention-to- treat | NO | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO | YES |
| 10. | Between-group comparison | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| 11. | Point estimate and variability | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Total score | 7/10 | 6/10 | 8/10 | 6/10 | 8/10 | 7/10 | 8/10 |
Figure 1PRISMA diagram of effectiveness of respiratory muscle training in patients with stroke.