Article Text

Download PDFPDF
The role of facemask spirometry in motor neuron disease
  1. Sandip Kamakhya Banerjee1,
  2. Michael Davies1,
  3. Linda Sharples2,
  4. Ian Smith1
  1. 1Respiratory Sleep & Support Centre, Papworth Hospital NHS Trust, Papworth Everard, Cambridgeshire, UK
  2. 2MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sandip Kamakhya Banerjee, Clinical Research Fellow, Respiratory Sleep and Support Centre, Papworth Hospital NHS Trust, Cambridgeshire CB23 3RE, UK; sandipbanerjee74{at}gmail.com

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Respiratory failure is the most frequent cause of death in people with motor neuron disease (MND). Vital capacity and maximal inspiratory and expiratory mouth pressures are the methods most commonly used to assess respiratory muscle impairment. Forced vital capacity (FVC) at diagnosis, and the rate of decline, are predictors of survival. An FVC of <50% predicted is proposed by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE, UK) as an indication of the need for evaluation for non-invasive ventilation.1

For many patients with MND who have facial or bulbar muscle weakness, standard spirometry with a mouthpiece or tube is inaccurate due to mouth leaks as they are unable to effectively seal their lips around the tube/mouthpiece. Sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP), and maximal inspiratory mouth pressure (PiMax) may be preferable, but are less widely available and not always successful.2 Mask spirometry has been used but not validated in MND2 and in healthy volunteers, tube spirometry gives greater values than a mask.3 We compared mask and tube interfaces for spirometry in subjects with MND.

Consecutive patients were …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • All authors had full access to all the data in the study, and take full responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

  • Contributors SB, MD and IS designed the study and obtained ethical approval. LS completed the statistical analysis and generated the figures. SB, MD and IS co-wrote the manuscript. All authors approved the final version.

  • Funding The research project was funded by a project grant from the Research & Development Department, Papworth Hospital NHS Trust. LS was supported by the Medical Research Council (Unit Programme number U015232027).

  • Competing interests None.

  • Patient Consent Obtained.

  • Ethics approval The study was conducted with approval of the Cambridgeshire III Research Ethics Committee (REC ref. no: 10/H0306/9).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.