ERJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Order Full text via Infotrieve
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Permissions
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Heijdra, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Folgering, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Heijdra, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Folgering, H.
Eur Respir J 1993; 6: 541-546
Copyright © ERS Journals Ltd 1993

Original Articles

Differences between sniff mouth pressures and static maximal inspiratory mouth pressures

YF Heijdra, PN Dekhuijzen, CL van Herwaarden, and HT Folgering

Measurements of static maximal inspiratory mouth pressure (PImax) and dynamic sniff mouth pressure (Psniff) are frequently used to assess inspiratory muscle strength. The aim of the present study was to examine, in 42 healthy subjects, the equivalence of PImax and Psniff, the influence of body posture on PImax and Psniff, and the effects of nasal patency and repeated manoeuvres on Psniff. PImax was significantly higher than Psniff, 11.05 +/- 0.42 versus 8.53 +/- 0.31 kPa. Because of the low agreement between PImax and Psniff, the two measurement methods were not interchangeable. The limits of agreement were 2.56 +/- 3.92 kPa. Sitting PImax was 11.05 +/- 0.42 kPa, and supine PImax was 9.36 +/- 0.41 kPa. Sitting and supine Psniff were 8.53 +/- 0.31 kPa and 7.52 +/- 0.33 kPa, respectively. Psniff performed with one nostril open instead of two, was higher: 9.67 +/- 0.32 kPa left and 9.62 +/- 0.32 kPa right versus 8.53 +/- 0.31 kPa when both nostrils were open. After 20-28 sniff manoeuvres, Psniff fell from 8.43 +/- 0.31 kPa to 7.83 +/- 0.30 kPa, suggesting some mechanism of inspiratory muscle fatigue. We conclude that measurement of sitting PImax yields the highest values for inspiratory muscle strength. The two measurement methods, Psniff and PImax, are not interchangeable. Measurement of Psniff is affected by nasal patency.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur Respir JHome page
M. Wohlgemuth, E.L. van der Kooi, J.C. Hendriks, G.W. Padberg, and H.T. Folgering
Face mask spirometry and respiratory pressures in normal subjects
Eur. Respir. J., December 1, 2003; 22(6): 1001 - 1006.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
I. Iandelli, M. Gorini, G. Misuri, F. Gigliotti, E. Rosi, R. Duranti, and G. Scano
Assessing Inspiratory Muscle Strength in Patients With Neurologic and Neuromuscular Diseases : Comparative Evaluation of Two Noninvasive Techniques
Chest, April 1, 2001; 119(4): 1108 - 1113.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
T. VASSILAKOPOULOS, Z. MASTORA, P. KATSAOUNOU, G. DOUKAS, S. KLIMOPOULOS, C. ROUSSOS, and S. ZAKYNTHINOS
Contribution of Pain to Inspiratory Muscle Dysfunction after Upper Abdominal Surgery . A Randomized Controlled Trial
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., April 1, 2000; 161(4): 1372 - 1375.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by the European Respiratory Society.