RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The non-invasive assessment of maximal respiratory pressures (MRP) reflects the strength of the respiratory muscles. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the studies which have established normative values for MRP in healthy children and adolescents and to synthesize these values through a meta-analysis. METHODS: The searches were conducted until October 2023 in the following databases: ScienceDirect, MEDLINE, CINAHL, SciELO, and Web of Science. Articles that determined normative values and/or reference equations for maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and maximal expiratory pressure (MEP) in children and adolescents published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish regardless of the year of publication were included. Two reviewers selected titles and abstracts, in case of conflict, a third reviewer was consulted. Articles that presented sufficient data were included to conduct the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Initially, 252 studies were identified, 28 studies were included in the systematic review and 19 in the meta-analysis. The sample consisted of 5798 individuals, and the MIP and MEP values were stratified by sex and age groups of 4-11 and 12-19 years. Values from females 4-11 years were: 65.8 cmH2O for MIP and 72.8 cmH2O for MEP, and for males, 75.4 cmH2O for MIP and 84.0 cmH2O for MEP. In the 12-19 age group, values for females were 82.1 cmH2O for MIP and 90.0 cmH2O for MEP, and for males, they were 95.0 cmH2O for MIP and 105.7 cmH2O for MEP. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests normative values for MIP and MEP in children and adolescents based on 19 studies.
Asunto(s)
Presiones Respiratorias Máximas , Músculos Respiratorios , Humanos , Adolescente , Niño , Músculos Respiratorios/fisiología , Valores de Referencia , Masculino , FemeninoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Whether the modified shuttle test (MST) achieves maximal effort in children and adolescents with asthma is unclear. The aim was to compare the physiological responses of MST to the cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) in pediatric patients with asthma, to observe its convergent validity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study with volunteers with asthma (6-17 years of age) under regular treatment. The MST is an external-paced test, and the participants were allowed to walk/run. CPET was performed on a cycle ergometer to compare with MST. Gas exchange (VO2 , VCO2 , and VE) and heart rate (HR) were the outcomes and were continuously assessed in both tests. RESULTS: Forty-seven volunteers were included, normal lung function expiratory forced volume at 1st second/forced vital capacity (FEV1 /FVC) 88.6 (7.7). VO2peak was higher at MST (2.0 ± 0.6 L/min) compared to CPET (1.6 ± 0.5 L/min), p < 0.001. Similar results was observed to VE at MST (50 ± 16 L/min) versus VE at CPET (40 ± 13 L/min), and to VCO2 at MST (2.1 ± 0.8 L/min) versus VCO2 at CPET (1.7 ± 0.6 L/min), p < 0.001. HR was also higher at MST (94 ± 6%pred) versus CPET (87 ± 8%pred), p = 0.002. VO2peak in MST correlated to the CPET (r = 0.78, p < 0.001). The ICC of VO2peak between tests was 0.73 (0.06-0.89), p < 0.001, and VO2peak Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of 0.46 L/min. CONCLUSION: The MST showed a maximal physiologic response in children and adolescents with asthma. It is a valid test and can be used as an alternative to evaluating exercise capacity.