Comparative study of two different respiratory training protocols in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

22Citations
Citations of this article
186Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare threshold inspiratory muscle training (IMT) and expiratory muscle training (EMT) in elderly male patients with moderate degree of COPD. Materials and methods: Forty male patients with moderate degree of COPD were recruited for this study. They were randomly divided into two groups: the IMT group who received inspiratory training with an intensity ranging from 15% to 60% of their maximal inspiratory pressure, and the EMT group who received expiratory training with an equal intensity which was adjusted according to the maximal expiratory pressure. Both groups received training three times per week for 2 months, in addition to their prescribed medications. Results: Both IMT and EMT groups showed a significant improvement in forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in the first second, forced expiratory volume in the first second% from the predicted values, and forced vital capacity% from the predicted value, with no difference between the groups. Both types of training resulted in a significant improvement in blood gases (SaO2%, PaO2, PaCO2, and HCO3), with the inspiratory muscle group showing the best results. Both groups showed a significant improvement in the 6-min walking distance: an increase of about 25% in the inspiratory muscle group and about 2.5% in the expiratory muscle group. Conclusion: Both IMT and EMT must be implemented in pulmonary rehabilitation programs in order to achieve improvements in pulmonary function test, respiratory muscle strength, blood oxygenation, and 6-min walking distance.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mehani, S. H. M. (2017). Comparative study of two different respiratory training protocols in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 12, 1705–1715. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S145688

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free