ArticleThorax2004
Inspiratory muscle load and capacity in chronic heart failure.
Article in Thorax, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unraveling the Role of Respiratory Muscle Metaboloreceptors under Inspiratory Training in Patients with Heart Failure.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Cardiac Rehab for Functional Improvement.Current heart failure reports · 2020Review
- Inspiratory Muscle Training in Patients with Heart Failure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Diaphragm abnormalities in heart failure and aging: mechanisms and integration of cardiovascular and respiratory pathophysiology.Heart failure reviews · 2017Review
- Measurement of maximal inspiratory pressure in ventilated children.Pediatric pulmonology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough breathlessness is common in chronic heart failure (CHF), the role of inspiratory muscle dysfunction remains unclear. We hypothesised that inspiratory muscle endurance, expressed as a function of endurance time (Tlim) adjusted for inspiratory muscle load and inspiratory muscle capacity, would be reduced in CHF.
methodsEndurance was measured in 10 healthy controls and 10 patients with CHF using threshold loading at 40% maximal oesophageal pressure (Poes(max)). Oesophageal pressure-time product (PTPoes per cycle) and Poes(max) were used as indices of inspiratory muscle load and capacity, respectively.
resultsAlthough Poes(max) was slightly less in the CHF group (-117.7 (23.6) v -100.0 (18.3) cm H(2)O; 95% CI -37.5 to 2.2 cm H(2)O, p = 0.1), Tlim was greatly reduced (1800 v 306 (190) s; 95% CI 1368 to 1620 s, p<0.0001) and the observed PTPoes per cycle/Poes(max) was increased (0.13 (0.05) v 0.21 (0.04); 95% CI -0.11 to -0.03, p = 0.001). Most of this increased inspiratory muscle load was due to a maladaptive breathing pattern, with a reduction in expiratory time (3.0 (5.8) v 1.1 (0.3) s; 95% CI 0.3 to 3.5 s, p = 0.03) accompanied by an increased inspiratory time relative to total respiratory cycle (Ti/Ttot) (0.43 (0.14) v 0.62 (0.07); 95% CI -0.3 to -0.1, p = 0.001). However, log Tlim, which incorporates the higher inspiratory muscle load to capacity ratio caused by this altered breathing pattern, was >/=85% predicted in seven of 10 patients.
conclusionsAlthough a marked reduction in endurance time was observed in CHF, much of this reduction was explained by the increased inspiratory muscle load to capacity ratio, suggesting that the major contributor to task failure was a maladaptive breathing pattern rather than impaired inspiratory muscle endurance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.