OBJECTIVE: To compare peak cough flows (PCF) obtained with a pneumotachograph (PCFp) with those measured using a portable peak flow meter (PCFm) in a population of healthy subjects and patients with neuromuscular disease. DESIGN: A total of 30 healthy subjects and 32 medically stable patients with neuromuscular diseases were studied. Using an oronasal mask connected, in a randomized order, to a pneumotachograph and to a portable peak flow meter, PCFp and PCFm were measured as every subject performed maximal cough efforts from total lung capacity. RESULTS:PCFp measurements were 377.70 +/-179.28 liters/min and PCFm measurements were 377.50 +/- 172.98 liters/min (not significant). The two measurements were correlated (r = 0.95, P < 0.001). The random error obtained was 9.37%. The mean of the differences between the values obtained using both instruments +/- limits of agreement (+2 SD) was 0.20 +/- 109.78 liters/min (not significant). When the agreement was tested over three ranges of flows (< 270 liters/min, 270-480 liters/min, and >480 liters/min), no statistically significant differences were obtained for the population as a whole in any range; however, in the lower flow range, 14 patients had PCFm significantly greater than PCFp (213.93 +/- 55.92 vs. 180.86 +/- 57.22, P = <0.01). CONCLUSION: PCF measurements made with a portable peak flow meter such as the asmaPLAN+ (Vitalograph, Ennis, Ireland) are reproducible and reasonably accurate when flows are >270 liters/min. However, some caution must be exercised in clinical practice at lower PCF because of the tendency of this portable device to overestimate the lower flows.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare peak cough flows (PCF) obtained with a pneumotachograph (PCFp) with those measured using a portable peak flow meter (PCFm) in a population of healthy subjects and patients with neuromuscular disease. DESIGN: A total of 30 healthy subjects and 32 medically stable patients with neuromuscular diseases were studied. Using an oronasal mask connected, in a randomized order, to a pneumotachograph and to a portable peak flow meter, PCFp and PCFm were measured as every subject performed maximal cough efforts from total lung capacity. RESULTS: PCFp measurements were 377.70 +/-179.28 liters/min and PCFm measurements were 377.50 +/- 172.98 liters/min (not significant). The two measurements were correlated (r = 0.95, P < 0.001). The random error obtained was 9.37%. The mean of the differences between the values obtained using both instruments +/- limits of agreement (+2 SD) was 0.20 +/- 109.78 liters/min (not significant). When the agreement was tested over three ranges of flows (< 270 liters/min, 270-480 liters/min, and >480 liters/min), no statistically significant differences were obtained for the population as a whole in any range; however, in the lower flow range, 14 patients had PCFm significantly greater than PCFp (213.93 +/- 55.92 vs. 180.86 +/- 57.22, P = <0.01). CONCLUSION: PCF measurements made with a portable peak flow meter such as the asmaPLAN+ (Vitalograph, Ennis, Ireland) are reproducible and reasonably accurate when flows are >270 liters/min. However, some caution must be exercised in clinical practice at lower PCF because of the tendency of this portable device to overestimate the lower flows.
Authors: Gregory R Dion; Efstratios Achlatis; Stephanie Teng; Yixin Fang; Michael Persky; Ryan C Branski; Milan R Amin Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: G B Migliori; F M Marx; N Ambrosino; E Zampogna; H S Schaaf; M M van der Zalm; B Allwood; A L Byrne; K Mortimer; R S Wallis; G J Fox; C C Leung; J M Chakaya; B Seaworth; A Rachow; B J Marais; J Furin; O W Akkerman; F Al Yaquobi; A F S Amaral; S Borisov; J A Caminero; A C C Carvalho; D Chesov; L R Codecasa; R C Teixeira; M P Dalcolmo; S Datta; A-T Dinh-Xuan; R Duarte; C A Evans; J-M García-García; G Günther; G Hoddinott; S Huddart; O Ivanova; R Laniado-Laborín; S Manga; K Manika; A Mariandyshev; F C Q Mello; S G Mpagama; M Muñoz-Torrico; P Nahid; C W M Ong; D J Palmero; A Piubello; E Pontali; D R Silva; R Singla; A Spanevello; S Tiberi; Z F Udwadia; M Vitacca; R Centis; L D Ambrosio; G Sotgiu; C Lange; D Visca Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 3.427
Authors: Mouhammad El Hassan; Hassan Assoum; Nikolay Bukharin; Huda Al Otaibi; Md Mofijur; Anas Sakout Journal: Eur Phys J Plus Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 3.911
Authors: José Antonio Sánchez-Guerrero; Maria Àngels Cebrià I Iranzo; Francisco José Ferrer-Sargues; Sophie Périé Journal: Clin Otolaryngol Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 2.729
Authors: David S Hui; Stephen D Hall; Matthew T V Chan; Benny K Chow; Susanna S Ng; Tony Gin; Joseph J Y Sung Journal: Chest Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 9.410