You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Airflow rates and breathlessness recovery from submaximal exercise in healthy adults: prospective, randomised, cross-over study

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Airflow rates and breathlessness recovery from submaximal exercise in healthy adults: prospective, randomised, cross-over study
  1. Andrew Brew1,
  2. Sarah O’Beirne1,
  3. Miriam J Johnson1,
  4. Christina Ramsenthaler1,2,3,
  5. Peter J Watson4,
  6. Philip A Rubini4,
  7. Michael J Fagan4,
  8. Flavia Swan1 and
  9. Andrew Simpson5
  1. 1Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK
  2. 2School of Health Professions, Institute of Health Sciences, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Zurich, Switzerland
  3. 3Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King’s College London, London, UK
  4. 4School of Engineering, University of Hull, Hull, UK
  5. 5School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, University of Hull, Hull, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Andrew Simpson, Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, University of Hull, Hull, UK; A.Simpson2{at}hull.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives Facial airflow from a hand-held fan may reduce breathlessness severity and hasten postexertion recovery. Data from randomised controlled trials are limited and the optimal airflow speed remains unknown. We aimed to determine the effect of different airflow speeds on recovery from exercise-induced breathlessness.

Methods A prospective, randomised, cross-over design. Ten healthy participants (seven male; mean age 29±4 years; height 175±9 cm; body mass 76.9±14.1 kg) completed six bouts of 4 min of exercise. During the first 5 min of a 20 min recovery phase, participants received one of five airflow speeds by holding a fan ~15 cm from their face, or no fan control, administered in random order. Fan A had an internal blade, and fan B had an external blade. Breathlessness was measured using a numerical rating scale (NRS) at minute intervals for the first 10 min, and facial skin temperature was recorded using a thermal imaging camera (immediately postexertion and 5 min recovery).

Results Nine participants completed the trial. A significant main effect for airflow speed (p=0.016, ηp2=0.285) and interaction effect for airflow speed over time (p=0.008, ηp2=0.167) suggest that the airflow speed modifies breathlessness during recovery from exercise. Fan speeds of 1.7 m/s or greater increased the speed of recovery from breathlessness compared with control (p<0.05) with the highest airflow speeds (2.5 m/s and 3.3 m/s) giving greatest facial cooling.

Conclusion Higher airflow rates (1.7 m/s or greater) reduced self-reported recovery times from exercise-induced breathlessness and reduced facial temperature .

  • Dyspnoea
  • Respiratory conditions

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are available upon request to any research with ethical approval.

https://doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2023-004309

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.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are available upon request to any research with ethical approval.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @MJJohnson_HYMS, @swanflavia

    • Contributors Guarantor: AS. Planning: FS, MJJ, AS, PAR, PJW, MJF, AB, SO’B, CR. Conduct: PJW, AB, SO’B, FS, AS. Analysis: AS, CR. Interpretation: FS, MJJ, AS, PAR, PJW, MJF, AB, SO’B, CR. Manuscript: first draft: AB, S’OB, AS. Revisions and approval of final manuscript: FS, MJJ, AS, PAR, PJW, MF, AB, SO’B, CR.

    • Funding Impact Accelerator Fund, University of Hull. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

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

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.