Chest
Volume 111, Issue 3, March 1997, Pages 802-807
Journal home page for Chest

Pulmonary Physiologic Test of the Month
How Many Maneuvers Are Required to Measure Maximal Inspiratory Pressure Accurately?

https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.111.3.802Get rights and content

Objective

To determine whether performing more maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) maneuvers per test provides a more accurate assessment of the true maximal inspiratory strength.

Design

Review of MIP data from 367 tests. Each subject was encouraged to perform 20 MIP maneuvers per test, unless the patient reached the highest measurable pressure three times, or because of poor cooperation, fatigue, or respiratory distress. From the same raw data, MIP was calculated in two ways: (1) the “short MIP” was defined as the average of the first three highest values with ≤5% variability; the results from further maneuvers were ignored; and (2) the “long MIP” is defined as the average of the three highest values with ≤5% variability from all recorded maneuvers.

Setting

Pulmonary Physiology Laboratory, Childrens Hospital Los Angeles.

Participants

One hundred seventy-eight pediatric and adult subjects (age, 14 ± 3 [SD] years; 53% male) with suspected inspiratory muscle weakness.

Measurements and results

The long MIP (91 ± 39 cm H2O) was significantly greater than the short MIP (82 ± 39 cm H2O) (p<0.000005). In 177 of 367 tests, the short MIP underestimated the peak performance.

Conclusions

From the same raw data, the long MIP was significantly greater than the short MIP. In 48% of the tests, the short MIP method underestimated the peak performance determined by the long MIP method. We speculate that the difference between the long MIP and the short MIP can be attributed to a learning effect.

Section snippets

Subjects

We analyzed raw data from 367 MIP tests performed by 178 patients (age, 14 ± 3 [SD] years; range, 4 to 25 years; 159 children and 19 adults; 53% male; weight, 45 ± 15 kg; total lung capacity, 80 ± 26% predicted, and residual volume, 154 ± 85% predicted) between 1988 to 1995. Adult subjects (age, 20 ± 2 years) performed 26 tests.

At Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, MIP evaluations are performed routinely in patients with neuromuscular diseases and musculoskeletal abnormalities. Patients had

RESULTS

Our study showed that from the same raw data, the long MIP was significantly greater than the short MIP (mean difference, 9 ± 13 cm H2O). This relationship is seen among children and adults (Fig 2), and female subjects (long MIP, 94 ± 40 cm H2O; short MIP, 84 ± 40 cm H2O; p<0.000005) and male subjects (long MIP, 87 ± 38 cm H2O; short MIP, 79 ± 38 cm H2O; p<0.000005). In fact, in 177 of 367 tests (48%), the long MIP was larger than the corresponding short MIP. The distribution of MIP results is

DISCUSSION

Our study demonstrates that MIP values calculated by the long MIP method were significantly greater than values determined by the short MIP method in children and adults, and in both male and female subjects. In almost half of the tests, the short MIP underestimated the long MIP. Therefore, performing the MIP maneuver more times resulted in higher MIP values.

The short MIP method assumes that peak performance is observed once results have been reproduced three times. Our observation that the

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our study demonstrates that from the same raw data, the long MIP was significantly greater than the short MIP. Therefore, attempting 20 maneuvers per test, as in the long MIP method, provides a more accurate assessment of the true inspiratory muscle strength. We speculate that the difference between the long MIP and the short MIP is due to a learning effect. In patients who performed the MIP maneuver four times, with each evaluation separated by a week, there was no difference in

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Margaret Wen for her invaluable assistance with data entry. We also thank Michael Stabile, MS, RPFT, and the staff at the Childrens Hospital Los Angeles Pulmonary Physiology Laboratory for their technical assistance.

REFERENCES (24)

  • BlackLF et al.

    Maximal respiratory pressures: normal values and relationship to age and sex

    Am Rev Respir Dis

    (1969)
  • EnrightPL et al.

    Respiratory muscle strength in the elderly

    Am J Respir Crit Care Med

    (1994)
  • Cited by (92)

    • Is there a synergistic relationship between diaphragm and pelvic floor muscles in pregnant women?

      2024, European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
    • A Phase II randomized controlled trial for lung and diaphragm protective ventilation (Real-time Effort Driven VENTilator management)

      2020, Contemporary Clinical Trials
      Citation Excerpt :

      Direct measures of respiratory muscle strength using maximal inspiratory pressure during airway occlusion (PiMax), either of the airway or esophagus, are regarded as the most appropriate tests in adults [23,24]. When patients are intubated, there is divergence in the literature as to whether maximal voluntary efforts can be guaranteed [2,23,25–28]. Alternatively, some investigators advocate twitch stimulation of the phrenic nerve, measuring change in airway pressure in response to a standardized brief stimulation.

    • Evaluation of respiratory parameters in finswimmers regarding gender, swimming style and distance

      2018, Respiratory Physiology and Neurobiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Anthropometric characteristics, percentage of body fat (7 skinfold points measurement, Harpenden, UK; Norton et al., 1996) and handgrip (Camry, EH 101, USA) were recorded. Respiratory muscle strength was assessed by measuring the maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax) by a MicroRPM portable device (MicroRPM, Care Fusion, California, USA; Wen et al., 1997) and pulmonary function parameters (FEV1, FVC and PEF) were measured by a portable spirometer (Card Guard Spiro Pro, Israel), in accordance with the ATS/ERS recommendation (Miller et al., 2005). Athletes were allocated into groups [Gender: Female (F) vs. Male (M); finswimming style: BF vs. MF (surface events) and swimming distance: <200 m vs. ≥200 m].

    • Maximal Inspiratory Pressure: Does the Choice of Reference Values Actually Matter?

      2017, Chest
      Citation Excerpt :

      The ample heterogeneity of normal predicted values for MIP has long been recognized.1-4,25 This might stem from several sources including inter- and intrasubject variability of a highly effort-dependent test,15 differences in methods of measurement and reporting (e-Table 1), and biologic variation in variables that are notoriously difficult to control for, such as athleticism, muscularity, and central vs peripheral fat deposition.2,26-29 This issue has been addressed from theoretical and population-based perspectives,4,14-16 which uniformly showed substantial heterogeneity across age ranges in both sexes.

    • Respiratory Muscle Strength in Chronic Stroke Survivors and Its Relation with the 6-Minute Walk Test

      2016, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, we aimed for 6 acceptable maneuvers (without leaks and with a plateau on the curves), 3 of them reproducible with a maximum of 5% of variation. We followed this procedure26 to achieve more accuracy and to minimize the learning effect because this can influence the results of MEP and MIP.33,34 Most of the reviewed articles8,16,17,31 have not considered smokers or ex-smokers within the exclusion criteria.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Reprint requests: Dr. Marlyn Woo, Division of Pediatric Pulmonology-mailstop 83, Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, 4650 Sunset Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90027

    View full text