Table 2. Mean maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (in cmH2O), as well as their corresponding standard deviations, in controls and in patients at different stages of Parkinson’s disease.
| Variable | Controls | Parkinson’s disease | p* | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H&Y1 | H&Y2 | H&Y3/4 | |||
| N = 17 (100%) | n = 17 (35%) | n = 19 (39%) | n = 13 (26%) | ||
| MIP | −78.65 (22) | −59.00 (21) | −60.95 (20) | −48.85 (18) | 0.001 |
| Predicted MIP | 70.04 (11) | 80.97 (11) | 80.65 (12) | 79.76 (11) | 0.02 |
| MIP, % predicted | 112 (27) | 72 (19) | 77 (25) | 61 (18) | < 0.0001 |
| MEP | 106.53 (34) | 85.76 (22) | 90.00 (21) | 73.69 (33) | 0.016 |
| Predicted MEP | 103.02 (24) | 112.64 (26) | 115.30 (21) | 111.19 (26) | 0.29 |
| MEP, % predicted | 105 (28) | 79 (22) | 81 (25) | 66 (26) | 0.0005 |
H&Y: Hoehn & Yahr 10 ; H&Y1: patients with H&Y stage 1 Parkinson’s disease; H&Y2: patients with H&Y stage 2 Parkinson’s disease; and H&Y3/4: patients with H&Y stage 3/4 Parkinson’s disease. *One-way ANOVA and post hoc t-test (least significant difference). MIP: H&Y1 vs. controls (p < 0.006); H&Y2 vs. controls (p < 0.011); and H&Y3/4 vs. controls (p < 0.001). Predicted MIP: H&Y1 vs. controls (p = 0.007); H&Y2 vs. controls (p = 0.007); and H&Y3/4 vs. controls (p = 0.02). MIP, % predicted: H&Y1 vs. controls (p < 0.0001); H&Y2 vs. controls (p < 0.0001); and H&Y3/4 vs. controls (p < 0.0001). MEP: H&Y1 vs. controls (p = 0.031) and H&Y3/4 vs. controls (p = 0.002). MEP, % predicted: H&Y1 vs. controls (p = 0.002); H&Y2 vs. controls (p = 0.003); and H&Y3/4 vs. controls (p < 0.001).