Variation of respiratory resistance suggests optimization of airway caliber

A Rapid, Handheld Device to Assess Respiratory Resistance: Clinical and Normative Evidence

INTRODUCTION

Following reports of respiratory symptoms among service members returning from deployment to South West Asia (SWA), an expert panel recommended pre-deployment spirometry be used to assess disease burden. Unfortunately, testing with spirometry is high cost and time-consuming. The airflow perturbation device (APD) is a handheld monitor that rapidly measures respiratory resistance (APD-Rr) and has promising but limited clinical data. Its speed and portability make it ideally suited for large volume pre-deployment screening. We conducted a pilot study to assess APD performance characteristics and develop normative values.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively enrolled subjects and derived reference equations for the APD from those without respiratory symptoms, pulmonary disease, or tobacco exposure. APD testing was conducted by medical technicians who received a 10-min in-service on its use. A subset of subjects performed spirometry and impulse oscillometry (iOS), administered by trained respiratory therapists. APD measures were compared with spirometry and iOS.

RESULTS

The total study population included 199 subjects (55.8% males, body mass index 27.7 ± 6.0 kg/m2, age 49.9 ± 18.7 yr). Across the three APD trials, mean inspiratory (APD-Ri), expiratory (APD-Re), and average (APD-Ravg) resistances were 3.30 ± 1.0, 3.69 ± 1.2, and 3.50 ± 1.1 cm H2O/L/s. Reference equations were derived from 142 clinically normal volunteers. Height, weight, and body mass index were independently associated with APD-Ri, APD-Re, and APD-Ravg and were combined with age and gender in linear regression models. APD-Ri, APD-Re, and APD-Ravg were significantly inversely correlated with FEV1 (r = -0.39 to -0.42), FVC (r = -0.37 to -0.40), and FEF25-75 (r = -0.31 to -0.35) and positively correlated with R5 (r = 0.61-0.62), R20 (r = 0.50-0.52), X5 (r = -0.57 to -0.59), and FRES (r = 0.42-0.43). Bland-Altman plots showed that the APD-Rr closely approximates iOS when resistance is normal.

CONCLUSION

Rapid testing was achieved with minimal training required, and reference equations were constructed. APD-Rr correlated moderately with iOS and weakly with spirometry. More testing is required to determine whether the APD has value for pre- and post-deployment respiratory assessment.

Respirator masks protect health but impact performance: a review

Respiratory protective masks are used whenever it is too costly or impractical to remove airborne contamination from the atmosphere. Respirators are used in a wide range of occupations, form the military to medicine. Respirators have been found to interfere with many physiological and psychological aspects of task performance at levels from resting to maximum exertion. Many of these limitations have been investigated in order to determine quantitatively how much performance decrement can be expected from different levels of respirator properties. The entire system, including respirator and wearer interactions, must be considered when evaluating wearer performances. This information can help respirator designers to determine trade-offs or managers to plan to compensate for reduced productivity of wearers.

Test-retest reliability of respiratory resistance measured with the airflow perturbation device

PURPOSE

In this study, the authors aimed to determine reliability of the airflow perturbation device (APD) to measure respiratory resistance within and across sessions during resting tidal (RTB) and postexercise breathing in healthy athletes, and during RTB across trials within a session in athletes with paradoxical vocal fold motion (PVFM) disorder.

METHOD

Prospective, repeated-measures design. The APD measured respiratory resistance during 3 baseline assessments in 24 teenage female athletes, 12 with and 12 without PVFM. Control athletes provided data at rest and following a customized exercise challenge during each of 3 sessions. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis assessed strength of relationships, and repeated-measures analysis of variance assessed differences across trials and sessions.

RESULTS

ICC analyses confirmed strong correlations across RTB trials for inspiratory, expiratory, and mean respiratory resistance in both groups. Inspiratory resistance decreased ~5% between sessions for control participants; expiratory and mean respiratory resistances were stable. Data from control athletes across sessions and following rigorous exercise were strongly correlated when taken at comparable intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

APD-measured respiratory resistance, including separate assessments for the inspiratory and expiratory phases, has strong test-retest reliability during RTB and after exercising. This suggests that the APD is a useful measurement tool for the assessment of airway function in patients suspected of having PVFM.

Comparison of Respiratory Resistance Measurements Made with an Airflow Perturbation Device with Those from Impulse Oscillometry

The airflow perturbation device (APD) has been developed as a portable, easy to use, and a rapid response instrument for measuring respiratory resistance in humans. However, the APD has limited data validating it against the established techniques. This study used a mechanical system to simulate the normal range of human breathing to validate the APD with the clinically accepted impulse oscillometry (IOS) technique. The validation system consisted of a sinusoidal flow generator with ten standardized resistance configurations that were shown to represent a total range of resistances from 0.12 to 0.95 kPa·L⁻¹·s (1.2–9.7 cm H₂O·L⁻¹·s). Impulse oscillometry measurements and APD measurements of the mechanical system were recorded and compared at a constant airflow of 0.15 L·s⁻¹. Both the IOS and APD measurments were accurate in assessing nominal resistance. In addition, a strong linear relationship was observed between APD measurements and IOS measurements (R² = 0.999). A second series of measurements was made on ten human volunteers with external resistors added in their respiratory flow paths. Once calibrated with the mechanical system, the APD gave respiratory resistance measurements within 5% of IOS measurements. Because of their comparability to IOS measurements, APD measurements are shown to be valid representations of respiratory resistance.