Effects of unsupervised inspiratory muscle training on ventilation variability in post-covid-19 individuals: a double-blind randomized clinical trial.
inspiratory muscle training,ventilatory variability,post-covid-19
Introduction: The analysis of exercise ventilatory variability is still little used in post-COVID-19 patients, but it can provide important data for this population. In a study with this population, the ventilatory pattern during exercise revealed respiratory dysfunction and ventilatory oscillations over time. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of an unsupervised inspiratory muscle training (IMT) protocol on the behavior of ventilatory variability, respiratory muscle strength, lung function, quality of life, functional capacity, level of physical activity and adverse effects. Methods: randomized, controlled and double-blind clinical trial, carried out at the Laboratory of Measurements and Assessment in Health (LABMAS), Department of Physiotherapy of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) from March to October 2024. Subjects of both sexes, aged over 18 years, with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were recruited. The subjects included in the research underwent two evaluation moments: pre-training (Initial) and post-training (6 weeks). The assessments included anamnesis and physical examination, with measurement of vital signs, anthropometric measurements, spirometry, respiratory muscle strength, functional capacity, analysis of ventilatory variability, quality of life, level of physical activity and adverse effects. After the initial assessment, all volunteers received a POWERbreathe® classic light resistance device (POWERbreathe®, Nsc, Brazil) for training, and were individually instructed on how to use it and how to perform the protocol. Experimental protocol: load of 30% of the total MIP value, with a weekly load adjustment of 10% of MIP. The sessions consisted of 30 repetitions, 4 times a day, 2 sets in the morning and 2 in the afternoon, with a one-minute interval between sets, 7 consecutive days a week, for 6 weeks. The control group underwent the same protocol without load.
Results: 86 participants were eligible to participate in the study. 26 participants completed the post-intervention test and were included in the analysis. The repeated measures ANOVA showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the means of ventilatory variability at the pre- and post-intervention moments [F(1.0; 24)=5.34, p=0.03]. The differences between the mean scores of FVC [F(1.0; 23.00)= 0.660; p=0.425], FEV1 [F(1.0; 23)=2.06, p=0.164], FEV1/FVC [F(1.0; 23)=2.41, p=0.134], were not statistically significant at the pre- and post-intervention moments.
There was a statistically significant difference between the means of MIP [F(1.0; 24)=11.372, p=0.003] at the pre- and post-intervention moments. There was no statistically significant difference between the MEP means [F(1.0; 24)=1.90, p=0.181], as well as between the means of the step test [F(1.0; 24)=0.80, p=0.780]. For the quality of life questionnaire, the analysis showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the means of the functional capacity domains before and after the intervention [F(1.0; 24)=4.357, p=0.048] and physical aspects [F(1.0; 24)=10.646, p=0.003], respectively. However, the final score for mental health [F(1.0; 24)=3.11, p=0.091] and physical health [F(1.0; 24)=8.96, p=0.006] did not show a statistically significant difference. Conclusion: Unsupervised IMT showed positive effects in the studied sample on ventilation variability, MIP, and the functional capacity and physical aspects domains of the quality of life questionnaire and may represent an alternative treatment within the rehabilitation of post-COVID-19 patients. Data interpretation should be performed with caution. Some limitations of the study may have interfered with the other results evaluated, such as the number of participants, the short period of the training protocol, and the medium and long-term effects that were not evaluated.