Comparação entre a pressão inspiratória máxima aferida pelo manovacuômetro digital e pelo dispositivo eletrônico de treinamento muscular inspiratório

Abstract

Aims: To compare maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) measured by a digital manometer and by an inspiratory muscle training (IMT) device and to evaluate hemodynamic changes after measurements. Methods: The sample included male and female individuals older than 18 years admitted to an intensive care unit who were hemodynamically stable, not being treated with vasoactive drugs or sedated, intubated or tracheostomized, and who were in the process of being weaned from mechanical ventilation. MIP was measured by both devices on three different occasions, with an occlusion time of 20 seconds and a 5-minute interval between measurements. The following parameters were assessed: respiratory rate, mean arterial pressure, and respiratory rate before and after each measurement by each device. The statistical analysis was made in the Statistical Analysis System and the R Project for Statistical Computing V. 3.1.2 softwares, using the ANOVA and the Wilcoxon tests. Results: Fifty-eight patients were included in the study. The mean value obtained for MIP was -46.22 centimeters of water (cmH2O) in the digital manometer and -13.15 cmH2O (p<0.001) in the IMT device. Heart rate showed a significant increase (p<0.0001) both before and after all measurements in both devices. Mean arterial pressure showed a statistically significant difference only before and after the first measurement by the digital manometer and before and after the second measurement by the IMT device (p<0.001). The respiratory rate oscillated significantly before and after the three measurements by both devices (p<0.0001). The hemodynamic parameters remained within reference values after MIP measurements. Conclusions: The digital manometer recorded a higher MIP than that measured by the IMT device. The hemodynamic parameter values oscillated in both devices, but they remained within the normal range and were not clinically significant.