Evaluation of the effects of pulmonary reexpansion devices in subjects with stroke sequelae
Respiratory mechanics; breath; physiotherapy; stroke
Introduction: Volume-oriented incentive spirometry (EIv) and positive expiratory pressure (PEP) are inexpensive, easy to transport and use resources to promote lung expansion. In subjects with Stroke sequelae the effects of one against the other and the use of both have not yet been established. Objective: To compare the variations of chest wall volumes in stroke patients submitted to different pulmonary expansion protocols: a) volume-oriented incentive spirometry spirometry (EIv), b) positive expiratory pressure (PEP) and c) both devices (PEP + EIv). Methods: This is an observational, analytical study. We will include individuals affected by an episode of Stroke, for at least three months, of both sexes, aged over 18 years. Evaluations will occur in two times (1 and 2) divided into two days, with a minimum interval of one week. On the first day, after evaluation of respiratory muscle strength (MIP and MEP) and pulmonary function (spirometry) the subjects will be randomized in order to perform the devices (EIv, PEP or PEP + EIv). We will assess the volumes of the chest
wall variation and their compartments: rib cage pulmonary (RCp); rib cage abdominal (RCa) and abdomen (AB) by Optoelectronic Plethysmography (OEP) with 2 minutes of quiet breathing (QB), 2 minutes of the randomized intervention technique (device) and 2 minutes of recovery. On the second day of evaluation, the other two devices will be used. The rest time between the devices will be defined through the stabilization of Heart Rate (HR) and Respiratory Rate (RR). Preliminary results: To date, 5 (2F) individuals, aged 54.0 [32.5-62.5] years and BMI 25.9 [24.4-28.9] kg/m2 have been evaluated. Regarding pulmonary volumes, we observed an increase in tidal volume of the chest wall (Vt,RCp) higher when using the devices associated PEP + EIv: 2.73 [1.95-3.82] (L), versus PEP: 1,65 [1.36-2.31] (L) versus EIv 2.25 [1.80-2.98] (L) respectively. This behavior was observed in all compartments of the chest wall, with the exception of the tidal volume of the abdomen (Vt,AB), where EIv presented higher values of median 0.86 [0.44-1.14] (L) when compared to PEP + EIv 0.81 [0.61-1.77] (L) and PEP 0.61 [0.57-0.96] (L). Statistical analysis was not performed due to the small sample collected. Conclusion: The use of combined reexpansion devices (PEP + EIv) seems to promote greater variation of chest wall volumes in stroke subjects, especially in RCp and RCa compartments. However, a greater number of individuals should be evaluated for confirmation of these findings.