Effects of Pursed Lip Breathing on Exercise Capacity and Dyspnea in Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although mainly described in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pursed lip breathing (PLB) could prove useful in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) by improving exertional tachypnea and respiratory control. This prospective, randomized, crossover trial aimed at evaluating the impact of PLB on dyspnea and walking distance in ILD patients. METHODS: ILD patients with total lung capacity of <80% predicted were randomized to 6-min walk tests using either PLB or usual breathing. Patients were crossed over for the second 6-min walk tests and served as their own controls. Ventilatory and metabolic variables were recorded using a portable metabolic cart and were compared at 1-min intervals. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included (mean forced vital capacity of 64 ± 10% predicted). Use of PLB resulted in lower mean respiratory rates and larger tidal volumes (both P < .001), worsened dyspnea ratings (post-6-min walk test Borg score: 5.2 ± 2.6 vs 4.2 ± 2.3, P < .001), and walking distance (403 ± 102 m vs 429 ± 93 m, P < .001). Twenty-nine patients (83%) described PLB as less comfortable than usual breathing. Both groups had similar total ventilation and oxygen saturation (all P > .05), but PLB resulted in higher mean oxygen uptake (13.9 ± 3.6 vs 12.9 ± 3.2 mL/kg/min, P = .02), even when corrected for walking distance (P < .001). CONCLUSION: In ILD patients, acute exposure to PLB did not improve exertional dyspnea, walking distance, or gas exchange, and was associated with higher metabolic demands than usual breathing. These results cast doubt on the usefulness of this technique in ILD patients and should be taken into account when tailoring pulmonary rehabilitation programs to this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".