Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 31, 2026

Imaging Features of Systemic Sclerosis-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease
Published on: June 16, 2020
Effects of Pursed Lip Breathing on Exercise Capacity and Dyspnea in Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease: A
Stéfanie Parisien-La Salle1, Ellie Abel Rivest, Vincent Gosselin Boucher
1Département de Médecine (Drs Parisien-La Salle, Abel Rivest, Morisset, Manganas, Poirier, and Dubé) and Département de Kinésiologie (Lalande-Gauthier), Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) Montréal, Québec, Canada; Départment des Sciences de l'Activité Physique, Université du Quebec à Montréal (UQAM), Montréal, Québec, Canada (Mr Gosselin Boucher, Ms Lalande-Gauthier, and Dr Comtois); Département de Médecine, Service de Pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada (Drs Morisset, Manganas, Poirier, and Dubé); and Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM)-Carrefour de l'Innovation et de l'Évaluation en Santé, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (Dr Dubé).
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.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Lung Capacity
Breathing
Crossover Experiments
Crossover designs are performed even with smaller sample sizes since the samples can act as their controls. These are better than simple randomized trials since patients are exposed to all the treatments.
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
Serum Laboratory Studies, Stool Test, Breath Test
Pharmacodynamics in Geriatric Patients: Effects of Age

