Comparison of Forced and Slow Vital Capacity Maneuvers in Defining Airway Obstruction
Obstructive lung disease is diagnosed by a decreased ratio of FEV to the vital capacity (VC). Although the most commonly used VC is FVC, American Thoracic Society guidelines suggest alternative VCs, for example, slow VC (SVC), may offer a more-accurate evaluation of breathing capacity. There is rece...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Respiratory care 2019-07, Vol.64 (7), p.786-792 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 792 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 786 |
container_title | Respiratory care |
container_volume | 64 |
creator | Huprikar, Nikhil A Skabelund, Andrew J Bedsole, Valerie G Sjulin, Tyson J Karandikar, Asmita V Aden, James K Morris, Michael J |
description | Obstructive lung disease is diagnosed by a decreased ratio of FEV
to the vital capacity (VC). Although the most commonly used VC is FVC, American Thoracic Society guidelines suggest alternative VCs, for example, slow VC (SVC), may offer a more-accurate evaluation of breathing capacity. There is recent evidence that using only FEV
/FVC underrecognizes obstruction in subjects at high risk and who are symptomatic. Previous studies have indicated that healthy individuals show a minimum difference between FVC and SVC; however, testing of individuals with asthma and who are symptomatic indicates that SVC can be markedly larger than FVC.
To evaluate the differences among SVC, FVC, and SVC-based measurements in the diagnosis of symptomatic obstructive lung disease.
A retrospective analysis was performed of spirometry and plethysmography measurements from studies conducted between 2011 to 2015. We established a pulmonary function database that incorporated predictive equations from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES III). The SVC to FVC difference was calculated. FEV
/SVC was compared with FEV
/FVC by using NHANES III lower limit of normal values.
A total of 2,710 studies with 2,244 subjects were reviewed. Spirometric obstruction, as defined by NHANES III, was identified in 26.1% of the studies (707/2,710). The mean (± SD) difference between SVC and FVC was 375.0 ± 623.0 mL and 258.8 ± 532.5 mL in those with and those without obstruction, respectively. Subgroup and multivariate analysis demonstrated age, body mass index, and FEV
associated contributions to the difference between SVC and FVC. By using FEV
/SVC, the prevalence of obstruction increased from 26.1 to 45.0% (1,219/2,710) and identified 566 additional studies of subjects with obstruction. Fifty-four percent of the subjects with newly-identified obstructive lung disease (305/566) had smoking histories, and 67.4% (345/512) received medications for obstructive lung disease.
The isolated use of FVC-based diagnostic algorithms did not recognize individuals with symptomatic obstructive lung disease. Recognizing the difference between SVC and FVC measurements in subjects will improve testing and diagnosis of obstructive lung disease. |
doi_str_mv | 10.4187/respcare.06419 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2194586404</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A594833012</galeid><sourcerecordid>A594833012</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-4403c0ceeb9c1f4d1bcff06be35f73c4e6e37d3e771e49b15f8bc36b9af2977a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkU1rHDEMhk1oabZprz0WQ6H0Mlt75Pnwcdk0bSElhyS9Go9HThxm7Ik9k7D_vt7mgxaCDkLieYWkl5APnK0Fb5uvEdNkdMQ1qwWXB2TFpYAC6kq8IivGSlZwKMUheZvSTS5rUck35BBYK1kNbEUut2GcdHQpeBosPQnRYE-17-n5EO7pbzfrgW71pI2bd_SX9rjcYUzUeXqM1nnnr-jGxXu9o2ddmuNiZhf8O_La6iHh-8d8RC5Pvl1sfxSnZ99_bjenhREAcyEEA8MMYicNt6LnnbGW1R1CZRswAmuEpgdsGo5CdryybWeg7qS2pWwaDUfky8PcKYbbBdOsRpcMDkPeMyxJlfkbVVsLJjL66QG90gMq522YozZ7XG0qKVoAxstMrV-gcvQ4OhN8Pjn3_xN8_kdwjXqYr1MYlv0X0ouTTQwpRbRqim7Ucac4U3sr1ZOV6q-VWfDx8balG7F_xp-8gz8qm5oR</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2194586404</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Forced and Slow Vital Capacity Maneuvers in Defining Airway Obstruction</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Huprikar, Nikhil A ; Skabelund, Andrew J ; Bedsole, Valerie G ; Sjulin, Tyson J ; Karandikar, Asmita V ; Aden, James K ; Morris, Michael J</creator><creatorcontrib>Huprikar, Nikhil A ; Skabelund, Andrew J ; Bedsole, Valerie G ; Sjulin, Tyson J ; Karandikar, Asmita V ; Aden, James K ; Morris, Michael J</creatorcontrib><description>Obstructive lung disease is diagnosed by a decreased ratio of FEV
to the vital capacity (VC). Although the most commonly used VC is FVC, American Thoracic Society guidelines suggest alternative VCs, for example, slow VC (SVC), may offer a more-accurate evaluation of breathing capacity. There is recent evidence that using only FEV
/FVC underrecognizes obstruction in subjects at high risk and who are symptomatic. Previous studies have indicated that healthy individuals show a minimum difference between FVC and SVC; however, testing of individuals with asthma and who are symptomatic indicates that SVC can be markedly larger than FVC.
To evaluate the differences among SVC, FVC, and SVC-based measurements in the diagnosis of symptomatic obstructive lung disease.
A retrospective analysis was performed of spirometry and plethysmography measurements from studies conducted between 2011 to 2015. We established a pulmonary function database that incorporated predictive equations from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES III). The SVC to FVC difference was calculated. FEV
/SVC was compared with FEV
/FVC by using NHANES III lower limit of normal values.
A total of 2,710 studies with 2,244 subjects were reviewed. Spirometric obstruction, as defined by NHANES III, was identified in 26.1% of the studies (707/2,710). The mean (± SD) difference between SVC and FVC was 375.0 ± 623.0 mL and 258.8 ± 532.5 mL in those with and those without obstruction, respectively. Subgroup and multivariate analysis demonstrated age, body mass index, and FEV
associated contributions to the difference between SVC and FVC. By using FEV
/SVC, the prevalence of obstruction increased from 26.1 to 45.0% (1,219/2,710) and identified 566 additional studies of subjects with obstruction. Fifty-four percent of the subjects with newly-identified obstructive lung disease (305/566) had smoking histories, and 67.4% (345/512) received medications for obstructive lung disease.
The isolated use of FVC-based diagnostic algorithms did not recognize individuals with symptomatic obstructive lung disease. Recognizing the difference between SVC and FVC measurements in subjects will improve testing and diagnosis of obstructive lung disease.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0020-1324</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-3654</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4187/respcare.06419</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30890630</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Daedalus Enterprises, Inc</publisher><subject>Airway obstruction ; Algorithms ; Analysis ; Asthma ; Chronic obstructive lung disease ; Health surveys ; Lung diseases ; Lung volume measurement ; Nutrition ; Respiratory tract diseases ; Spirometry ; Venture capital ; Venture capital companies</subject><ispartof>Respiratory care, 2019-07, Vol.64 (7), p.786-792</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2019 by Daedalus Enterprises.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-4403c0ceeb9c1f4d1bcff06be35f73c4e6e37d3e771e49b15f8bc36b9af2977a3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30890630$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Huprikar, Nikhil A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skabelund, Andrew J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bedsole, Valerie G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sjulin, Tyson J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karandikar, Asmita V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aden, James K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morris, Michael J</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Forced and Slow Vital Capacity Maneuvers in Defining Airway Obstruction</title><title>Respiratory care</title><addtitle>Respir Care</addtitle><description>Obstructive lung disease is diagnosed by a decreased ratio of FEV
to the vital capacity (VC). Although the most commonly used VC is FVC, American Thoracic Society guidelines suggest alternative VCs, for example, slow VC (SVC), may offer a more-accurate evaluation of breathing capacity. There is recent evidence that using only FEV
/FVC underrecognizes obstruction in subjects at high risk and who are symptomatic. Previous studies have indicated that healthy individuals show a minimum difference between FVC and SVC; however, testing of individuals with asthma and who are symptomatic indicates that SVC can be markedly larger than FVC.
To evaluate the differences among SVC, FVC, and SVC-based measurements in the diagnosis of symptomatic obstructive lung disease.
A retrospective analysis was performed of spirometry and plethysmography measurements from studies conducted between 2011 to 2015. We established a pulmonary function database that incorporated predictive equations from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES III). The SVC to FVC difference was calculated. FEV
/SVC was compared with FEV
/FVC by using NHANES III lower limit of normal values.
A total of 2,710 studies with 2,244 subjects were reviewed. Spirometric obstruction, as defined by NHANES III, was identified in 26.1% of the studies (707/2,710). The mean (± SD) difference between SVC and FVC was 375.0 ± 623.0 mL and 258.8 ± 532.5 mL in those with and those without obstruction, respectively. Subgroup and multivariate analysis demonstrated age, body mass index, and FEV
associated contributions to the difference between SVC and FVC. By using FEV
/SVC, the prevalence of obstruction increased from 26.1 to 45.0% (1,219/2,710) and identified 566 additional studies of subjects with obstruction. Fifty-four percent of the subjects with newly-identified obstructive lung disease (305/566) had smoking histories, and 67.4% (345/512) received medications for obstructive lung disease.
The isolated use of FVC-based diagnostic algorithms did not recognize individuals with symptomatic obstructive lung disease. Recognizing the difference between SVC and FVC measurements in subjects will improve testing and diagnosis of obstructive lung disease.</description><subject>Airway obstruction</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Asthma</subject><subject>Chronic obstructive lung disease</subject><subject>Health surveys</subject><subject>Lung diseases</subject><subject>Lung volume measurement</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>Respiratory tract diseases</subject><subject>Spirometry</subject><subject>Venture capital</subject><subject>Venture capital companies</subject><issn>0020-1324</issn><issn>1943-3654</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptkU1rHDEMhk1oabZprz0WQ6H0Mlt75Pnwcdk0bSElhyS9Go9HThxm7Ik9k7D_vt7mgxaCDkLieYWkl5APnK0Fb5uvEdNkdMQ1qwWXB2TFpYAC6kq8IivGSlZwKMUheZvSTS5rUck35BBYK1kNbEUut2GcdHQpeBosPQnRYE-17-n5EO7pbzfrgW71pI2bd_SX9rjcYUzUeXqM1nnnr-jGxXu9o2ddmuNiZhf8O_La6iHh-8d8RC5Pvl1sfxSnZ99_bjenhREAcyEEA8MMYicNt6LnnbGW1R1CZRswAmuEpgdsGo5CdryybWeg7qS2pWwaDUfky8PcKYbbBdOsRpcMDkPeMyxJlfkbVVsLJjL66QG90gMq522YozZ7XG0qKVoAxstMrV-gcvQ4OhN8Pjn3_xN8_kdwjXqYr1MYlv0X0ouTTQwpRbRqim7Ucac4U3sr1ZOV6q-VWfDx8balG7F_xp-8gz8qm5oR</recordid><startdate>201907</startdate><enddate>201907</enddate><creator>Huprikar, Nikhil A</creator><creator>Skabelund, Andrew J</creator><creator>Bedsole, Valerie G</creator><creator>Sjulin, Tyson J</creator><creator>Karandikar, Asmita V</creator><creator>Aden, James K</creator><creator>Morris, Michael J</creator><general>Daedalus Enterprises, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201907</creationdate><title>Comparison of Forced and Slow Vital Capacity Maneuvers in Defining Airway Obstruction</title><author>Huprikar, Nikhil A ; Skabelund, Andrew J ; Bedsole, Valerie G ; Sjulin, Tyson J ; Karandikar, Asmita V ; Aden, James K ; Morris, Michael J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-4403c0ceeb9c1f4d1bcff06be35f73c4e6e37d3e771e49b15f8bc36b9af2977a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Airway obstruction</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Asthma</topic><topic>Chronic obstructive lung disease</topic><topic>Health surveys</topic><topic>Lung diseases</topic><topic>Lung volume measurement</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>Respiratory tract diseases</topic><topic>Spirometry</topic><topic>Venture capital</topic><topic>Venture capital companies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huprikar, Nikhil A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skabelund, Andrew J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bedsole, Valerie G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sjulin, Tyson J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karandikar, Asmita V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aden, James K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morris, Michael J</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Respiratory care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huprikar, Nikhil A</au><au>Skabelund, Andrew J</au><au>Bedsole, Valerie G</au><au>Sjulin, Tyson J</au><au>Karandikar, Asmita V</au><au>Aden, James K</au><au>Morris, Michael J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Forced and Slow Vital Capacity Maneuvers in Defining Airway Obstruction</atitle><jtitle>Respiratory care</jtitle><addtitle>Respir Care</addtitle><date>2019-07</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>64</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>786</spage><epage>792</epage><pages>786-792</pages><issn>0020-1324</issn><eissn>1943-3654</eissn><abstract>Obstructive lung disease is diagnosed by a decreased ratio of FEV
to the vital capacity (VC). Although the most commonly used VC is FVC, American Thoracic Society guidelines suggest alternative VCs, for example, slow VC (SVC), may offer a more-accurate evaluation of breathing capacity. There is recent evidence that using only FEV
/FVC underrecognizes obstruction in subjects at high risk and who are symptomatic. Previous studies have indicated that healthy individuals show a minimum difference between FVC and SVC; however, testing of individuals with asthma and who are symptomatic indicates that SVC can be markedly larger than FVC.
To evaluate the differences among SVC, FVC, and SVC-based measurements in the diagnosis of symptomatic obstructive lung disease.
A retrospective analysis was performed of spirometry and plethysmography measurements from studies conducted between 2011 to 2015. We established a pulmonary function database that incorporated predictive equations from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES III). The SVC to FVC difference was calculated. FEV
/SVC was compared with FEV
/FVC by using NHANES III lower limit of normal values.
A total of 2,710 studies with 2,244 subjects were reviewed. Spirometric obstruction, as defined by NHANES III, was identified in 26.1% of the studies (707/2,710). The mean (± SD) difference between SVC and FVC was 375.0 ± 623.0 mL and 258.8 ± 532.5 mL in those with and those without obstruction, respectively. Subgroup and multivariate analysis demonstrated age, body mass index, and FEV
associated contributions to the difference between SVC and FVC. By using FEV
/SVC, the prevalence of obstruction increased from 26.1 to 45.0% (1,219/2,710) and identified 566 additional studies of subjects with obstruction. Fifty-four percent of the subjects with newly-identified obstructive lung disease (305/566) had smoking histories, and 67.4% (345/512) received medications for obstructive lung disease.
The isolated use of FVC-based diagnostic algorithms did not recognize individuals with symptomatic obstructive lung disease. Recognizing the difference between SVC and FVC measurements in subjects will improve testing and diagnosis of obstructive lung disease.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Daedalus Enterprises, Inc</pub><pmid>30890630</pmid><doi>10.4187/respcare.06419</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0020-1324 |
ispartof | Respiratory care, 2019-07, Vol.64 (7), p.786-792 |
issn | 0020-1324 1943-3654 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2194586404 |
source | EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Airway obstruction Algorithms Analysis Asthma Chronic obstructive lung disease Health surveys Lung diseases Lung volume measurement Nutrition Respiratory tract diseases Spirometry Venture capital Venture capital companies |
title | Comparison of Forced and Slow Vital Capacity Maneuvers in Defining Airway Obstruction |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T15%3A51%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Forced%20and%20Slow%20Vital%20Capacity%20Maneuvers%20in%20Defining%20Airway%20Obstruction&rft.jtitle=Respiratory%20care&rft.au=Huprikar,%20Nikhil%20A&rft.date=2019-07&rft.volume=64&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=786&rft.epage=792&rft.pages=786-792&rft.issn=0020-1324&rft.eissn=1943-3654&rft_id=info:doi/10.4187/respcare.06419&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA594833012%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2194586404&rft_id=info:pmid/30890630&rft_galeid=A594833012&rfr_iscdi=true |