Blagev Denitza P, Sorenson Dean, Linares-Perdomo Olinto, Bamberg Stacy, Hegewald Matthew, Morris Alan H
Intermountain Healthcare, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Murray, Utah.
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Respir Care. 2016 Nov;61(11):1523-1529. doi: 10.4187/respcare.04611. Epub 2016 Sep 13.
Although the ratio of FEV to the vital capacity (VC) is universally accepted as the cornerstone of pulmonary function test (PFT) interpretation, FVC remains in common use. We sought to determine what the differences in PFT interpretation were when the largest measured vital capacity (VC) was used instead of the FVC.
We included 12,238 consecutive PFTs obtained for routine clinical care. We interpreted all PFTs first using FVC in the interpretation algorithm and then again using the VC, obtained either before or after administration of inhaled bronchodilator.
Six percent of PFTs had an interpretive change when VC was used instead of FVC. The most common changes were: new diagnosis of obstruction and exclusion of restriction (previously suggested by low FVC without total lung capacity measured by body plethysmography). A nonspecific pattern occurred in 3% of all PFT interpretations with FVC. One fifth of these 3% produced a new diagnosis of obstruction with VC. The largest factors predicting a change in PFT interpretation with VC were a positive bronchodilator response and the administration of a bronchodilator. Larger FVCs decreased the odds of PFT interpretation change. Surprisingly, the increased numbers of PFT tests did not increase odds of PFT interpretation change.
Six percent of PFTs have a different interpretation when VC is used instead of FVC. Evaluating borderline or ambiguous PFTs using the VC may be informative in diagnosing obstruction and excluding restriction.
尽管第一秒用力呼气容积(FEV)与肺活量(VC)的比值被普遍认为是肺功能测试(PFT)解读的基石,但用力肺活量(FVC)仍在广泛使用。我们试图确定当使用测量到的最大肺活量(VC)而非FVC时,PFT解读会有哪些差异。
我们纳入了12238例因常规临床护理而进行的连续PFT。我们首先在解读算法中使用FVC对所有PFT进行解读,然后再次使用吸入支气管扩张剂前后测得的VC进行解读。
当使用VC而非FVC时,6%的PFT解读发生了变化。最常见的变化是:新诊断为阻塞性通气功能障碍以及排除限制性通气功能障碍(此前由低FVC提示,但未通过体容积描记法测量肺总量)。在所有使用FVC的PFT解读中,3%出现了非特异性模式。在这3%中,五分之一使用VC时产生了新的阻塞性通气功能障碍诊断。预测使用VC时PFT解读发生变化的最大因素是支气管扩张剂反应阳性和使用支气管扩张剂。较大的FVC降低了PFT解读发生变化的几率。令人惊讶的是,PFT测试数量的增加并未增加PFT解读发生变化的几率。
当使用VC而非FVC时,6%的PFT有不同解读。使用VC评估临界或不明确的PFT在诊断阻塞性通气功能障碍和排除限制性通气功能障碍方面可能具有参考价值。