Spirometric changes in obstructive disease: after all, how much is significant?

OBJECTIVE: To establish the upper limits for changes in FEV1, slow vital capacity (SVC), FVC, and inspiratory capacity (IC) after placebo administration in patients with airflow obstruction. METHODS: One hundred and two adults with airflow obstruction (FEV1 = 62 ± 19% of predicted) were included in the study. All of the participants performed SVC and FVC maneuvers before and after the administration of placebo spray. The changes in FEV1, SVC, FVC, and IC were expressed as absolute values, percentage of change from baseline values, and percentage of predicted values, 95% CIs and 95th percentiles being calculated. Factor analysis was performed in order to determine how those changes clustered. RESULTS: Considering the 95% CIs and 95th percentiles and after rounding the values, we found that the upper limits for a significant response were as follows: FEV1 = 0.20 L, FVC = 0.20 L, SVC = 0.25 L, and IC = 0.30 L (expressed as absolute values); FEV1 = 12%, FVC = 7%, SVC = 10%, and IC = 15% (expressed as percentage of change from baseline values); and FEV1 = 7%, FVC = 6%, SVC = 7%, and IC = 12% (expressed as percentage of predicted values). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with airflow obstruction, IC varies more widely than do FVC and SVC. For IC, values greater than 0.30 L and 15% of change from the baseline value can be considered significant. For FVC, values greater than 0.20 L and 7% of change from the baseline value are significant. Alternatively, changes exceeding 0.20 L and 7% of the predicted value can be considered significant for FEV1 and FVC. On factor analysis, spirometric parameters clustered into three dimensions, expressing changes in flows, volumes, and dynamic hyperinflation.OBJETIVO: Estabelecer os limites superiores para mudanças em VEF1, capacidade vital lenta (CVL), CVF e capacidade inspiratória (CI) após o uso de placebo em pacientes com obstrução ao fluxo aéreo. MÉTODOS: Cento e dois adultos com obstrução ao fluxo aéreo (VEF1 = 62 ± 19% do previsto) foram incluídos neste estudo. Todos os participantes realizaram manobras de CVL e CVF antes e depois do uso de spray de placebo. As mudanças em VEF1, CVL, CVF e CI foram expressas em valores absolutos, porcentagem de variação em relação aos valores basais e porcentagem dos valores previstos, e foram calculados os IC95% e os percentis 95. A análise fatorial foi realizada a fim de determinar como essas alterações se agrupavam. RESULTADOS: Considerando os IC95% e percentis 95 e após o arredondamento dos valores, obtivemos os seguintes limites superiores para resposta significante: VEF1 = 0,20 L, CVF = 0,20 L, CVL = 0,25 L e CI = 0,30 L (em valores absolutos); VEF1 = 12%, CVF = 7%, CVL = 10% e CI = 15% (em porcentagem de variação em relação aos valores basais) e VEF1 = 7%, CVF = 6%, CVL = 7% e CI = 12% (em porcentagem dos valores previstos). CONCLUSÕES: Em pacientes com obstrução ao fluxo aéreo, a CI apresenta maior variabilidade do que a CVF e a CVL. Para a CI, valores maiores que 0,30 L e 15% de variação em relação ao valor basal devem ser considerados significantes. Para CVF, valores maiores que 0,20L e 7% de variação em relação ao valor basal são significantes. Alternativamente, alterações de mais de 0,20 L e 7% do previsto no VEF1 e na CVF devem ser consideradas significantes. Na análise fatorial, os parâmetros espirométricos se agruparam em três dimensões, expressando mudanças no fluxo, volume e hiperinsuflação dinâmica.Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do NorteUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)Hospital do Servidor Público Estadual de São PauloUNIFESPSciEL

Random variation of inspiratory lung function parameters in patients with COPD: A diagnostic accuracy study.

Contains fulltext : 89500.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the response of the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) after bronchodilator application is weak. Inspiratory parameters like the forced inspiratory volume in 1 second (FIV1) and inspiratory capacity (IC) can be responsive to bronchodilators. In an individual patient with COPD, a significant bronchodilator response must at least exceed the random variation for that parameter. Therefore, it is important that the type of scatter is homoscedastic, as the chance of underestimating or overestimating the random variation for low or high parameter values is minimized. The aim of this study is to investigate the random variation (type and quantity) of inspiratory parameters. METHODS: In 79 stable COPD patients, spirometry was performed. The forced inspiratory volume in 1 second (FIV1), inspiratory capacity (IC), maximal inspiratory flow at 50% (MIF50) and peak inspiratory flow (PIF) were measured five times in one day and again within two weeks of the first measurement. The values of these parameters, taken within one hour, within one day and between two different days, were compared. The coefficient of repeatability (CR) was calculated, and, in addition, linear regression was performed to investigate the type of scatter (homo- or heteroscedastic) of the measured parameters. RESULTS: The type of scatter was heteroscedastic for all of the parameters when the differences were expressed as absolute values; however, when the differences were expressed as the percent change from the initial values, we found a more homoscedastic scatter. The CR within one hour of each parameter expressed as the percent change from the initial value was: IC, 19%; FIV1, 14%; PIF, 18%; MEF50, 21%. CONCLUSIONS: To obtain a more homoscedastic scatter, percentage changes in FIV1, IC and MIF50 are more appropriate than absolute changes. In an individual patient with COPD, a significant improvement for a particular parameter must at least exceed the above-mentioned CR.9 p

Efeito do broncodilatador no tempo de apneia voluntária máxima em pacientes com distúrbios ventilatórios obstrutivos Bronchodilator effect on maximal breath-hold time in patients with obstructive lung disease

OBJETIVO: Identificar o papel do broncodilatador no tempo de apneia voluntária máxima em pacientes com distúrbios ventilatórios obstrutivos (DVOs). MÉTODOS: Estudo caso-controle incluindo pacientes com DVOs e grupo controle. Foram realizadas espirometrias antes e após o uso de broncodilatador, assim como testes de apneia respiratória, utilizando-se um microprocessador eletrônico e um pneumotacógrafo como transdutor de fluxo. As curvas de fluxo respiratório foram exibidas em tempo real em um computador portátil, e os tempos de apneia voluntária inspiratória e expiratória máximos (TAVIM e TAVEM, respectivamente) foram determinados a partir do sinal adquirido. RESULTADOS: Um total de 35 pacientes com DVOs e 16 controles foram incluídos no estudo. O TAVIM sem o uso de broncodilatador foi significativamente menor no grupo DVO que no grupo controle (22,27 ± 11,81 s vs. 31,45 ± 15,73; p = 0,025), mas essa diferença não foi significativa após o uso de broncodilatador (24,94 ± 12,89 s vs. 31,67 ± 17,53 s). Os valores de TAVEM foram significativamente menores no grupo DVO que no grupo controle antes (16,88 ± 6,58 s vs. 22,09 ± 7,95 s; p = 0,017) e após o uso de broncodilatador (21,22 ± 9,37 s vs. 28,53 ± 12,46 s; p = 0,024). CONCLUSÕES: Estes resultados fornecem uma evidência adicional da utilidade clínica do teste de apneia na avaliação da função pulmonar e do papel do broncodilatador nesse teste.<br>OBJECTIVE: To identify the role of bronchodilators in the maximal breath-hold time in patients with obstructive lung disease (OLD). METHODS: We conducted a case-control study including patients with OLD and a control group. Spirometric tests were performed prior to and after the use of a bronchodilator, as were breath-hold tests, using an electronic microprocessor and a pneumotachograph as a flow transducer. Respiratory flow curves were displayed in real time on a portable computer. The maximal breath-hold times at end-inspiratory volume and at end-expiratory volume (BHTmaxV EI and BHTmaxV EE, respectively) were determined from the acquired signal. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients with OLD and 16 controls were included. Prior to the use of a bronchodilator, the BHTmaxV EI was significantly lower in the OLD group than in the control group (22.27 ± 11.81 s vs. 31.45 ± 15.73 s; p = 0.025), although there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the post-bronchodilator values (24.94 ± 12.89 s vs. 31.67 ± 17.53 s). In contrast, BHTmaxV EE values were significantly lower in the OLD group than in the control group, in the pre- and post-bronchodilator tests (16.88 ± 6.58 s vs. 22.09 ± 7.95 s; p = 0.017; and 21.22 ± 9.37 s vs. 28.53 ± 12.46 s; p = 0.024, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide additional evidence of the clinical usefulness of the breath-hold test in the assessment of pulmonary function and add to the existing knowledge regarding the role of the bronchodilator in this test