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

Using staffing ratios for workforce planning: evidence on nine allied health professions

Background: Modern healthcare managers are faced with pressure to deliver effective, efficient services within the context of fixed budget constraints. This requires decisions regarding the skill mix of the workforce particularly when staffing new services. One measure used to identify numbers and mix of staff in healthcare settings is workforce ratio. The aim of this study was to identify workforce ratios in nine allied health professions and to identify whether these measures are useful for planning allied health workforce requirements. Method: A systematic literature search using relevant MeSH headings of business, medical and allied health databases and relevant grey literature for the period 2000-2008 was undertaken. Results: Twelve articles were identified which described the use of workforce ratios in allied health services. Only one of these was a staffing ratio linked to clinical outcomes. The most comprehensive measures were identified in rehabilitation medicine. Conclusions: The evidence for use of staffing ratios for allied health practitioners is scarce and lags behind the fields of nursing and medicine

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Two Rehabilitation Support Services for Women With Breast Cancer

The purpose of this research was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of two rehabilitation interventions for breast cancer survivors, each compared to a population-based, non-intervention group (n = 208). The two services included an early home-based physiotherapy intervention (DAART, n = 36) and a group-based exercise and psychosocial intervention (STRETCH, n = 31). A societal perspective was taken and costs were included as those incurred by the health care system, the survivors and community. Health outcomes included: (a) 'rehabilitated cases' based on changes in health-related quality of life between 6 and 12 months post-diagnosis, using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast Cancer plus Arm Morbidity (FACT-B+4) questionnaire, and (b) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using utility scores from the Subjective Health Estimation (SHE) scale. Data were collected using self-reported questionnaires, medical records and program budgets. A Monte-Carlo modelling approach was used to test for uncertainty in cost and outcome estimates. The proportion of rehabilitated cases was similar across the three groups. From a societal perspective compared with the non-intervention group, the DAART intervention appeared to be the most efficient option with an incremental cost of $1344 per QALY gained, whereas the incremental cost per QALY gained from the STRETCH program was$14,478. Both DAART and STRETCH are low-cost, low-technological health promoting programs representing excellent public health investments

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