STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of the FEV(1)/forced expiratory volume at 6 s of exhalation (FEV(6)) ratio and FEV(6) as an alternative for FEV(1)/FVC and FVC in the detection of airway obstruction and lung restriction, respectively. SETTING: Pulmonary function laboratory of the Academic Hospital of the Free University of Brussels. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 11,676 spirometric examinations were analyzed on subjects with the following characteristics: white race; 20 to 80 years of age; 7,010 men and 4,666 women; and able to exhale for at least 6 s. METHODS: Published reference equations were used to determine lower limits of normal (LLN) for FEV(6), FVC, FEV(1)/FEV(6), and FEV(1)/FVC. We considered a subject to have obstruction if FEV(1)/FVC was below its LLN. A restrictive spirometric pattern was defined as FVC below its LLN, in the absence of obstruction. From these data, sensitivity and specificity of FEV(1)/FEV(6) and FEV(6) were calculated. RESULTS: For the spirometric diagnosis of airway obstruction, FEV(1)/FEV(6) sensitivity was 94.0% and specificity was 93.1%; the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 89.8% and 96.0%, respectively. The prevalence of obstruction in the entire study population was 39.5%. For the spirometric detection of a restrictive pattern, FEV(6) sensitivity was 83.2% and specificity was 99.6%; the PPVs and NPVs were 97.4% and 96.9%, respectively. The prevalence of a restrictive pattern was 15.7%. Similar results were obtained for male and female subjects. When diagnostic interpretation differed between the two indexes, measured values were close to the LLN. CONCLUSIONS: The FEV(1)/FEV(6) ratio can be used as a valid alternative for FEV(1)/FVC in the diagnosis of airway obstruction, especially for screening purposes in high-risk populations for COPD in primary care. In addition, FEV(6) is an acceptable surrogate for FVC in the detection of a spirometric restrictive pattern. Using FEV(6) instead of FVC has the advantage that the end of a spirometric examination is more explicitly defined and is easier to achieve.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of the FEV(1)/forced expiratory volume at 6 s of exhalation (FEV(6)) ratio and FEV(6) as an alternative for FEV(1)/FVC and FVC in the detection of airway obstruction and lung restriction, respectively. SETTING: Pulmonary function laboratory of the Academic Hospital of the Free University of Brussels. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 11,676 spirometric examinations were analyzed on subjects with the following characteristics: white race; 20 to 80 years of age; 7,010 men and 4,666 women; and able to exhale for at least 6 s. METHODS: Published reference equations were used to determine lower limits of normal (LLN) for FEV(6), FVC, FEV(1)/FEV(6), and FEV(1)/FVC. We considered a subject to have obstruction if FEV(1)/FVC was below its LLN. A restrictive spirometric pattern was defined as FVC below its LLN, in the absence of obstruction. From these data, sensitivity and specificity of FEV(1)/FEV(6) and FEV(6) were calculated. RESULTS: For the spirometric diagnosis of airway obstruction, FEV(1)/FEV(6) sensitivity was 94.0% and specificity was 93.1%; the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 89.8% and 96.0%, respectively. The prevalence of obstruction in the entire study population was 39.5%. For the spirometric detection of a restrictive pattern, FEV(6) sensitivity was 83.2% and specificity was 99.6%; the PPVs and NPVs were 97.4% and 96.9%, respectively. The prevalence of a restrictive pattern was 15.7%. Similar results were obtained for male and female subjects. When diagnostic interpretation differed between the two indexes, measured values were close to the LLN. CONCLUSIONS: The FEV(1)/FEV(6) ratio can be used as a valid alternative for FEV(1)/FVC in the diagnosis of airway obstruction, especially for screening purposes in high-risk populations for COPD in primary care. In addition, FEV(6) is an acceptable surrogate for FVC in the detection of a spirometric restrictive pattern. Using FEV(6) instead of FVC has the advantage that the end of a spirometric examination is more explicitly defined and is easier to achieve.
Authors: Surya P Bhatt; Young-Il Kim; James M Wells; William C Bailey; Joe W Ramsdell; Marilyn G Foreman; Robert L Jensen; Douglas S Stinson; Carla G Wilson; David A Lynch; Barry J Make; Mark T Dransfield Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2014-03
Authors: Asli Gorek Dilektasli; Janos Porszasz; Richard Casaburi; William W Stringer; Surya P Bhatt; Youngju Pak; Harry B Rossiter; George Washko; Peter J Castaldi; Raul San Jose Estepar; James E Hansen Journal: Chest Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Guang-Shing Cheng; Angela P Campbell; Hu Xie; Zach Stednick; Cheryl Callais; Wendy M Leisenring; Janet A Englund; Jason W Chien; Michael Boeckh Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Imre Noth; Vincent Cottin; Nazia Chaudhuri; Tamera J Corte; Kerri A Johannson; Marlies Wijsenbeek; Stephane Jouneau; Andreas Michael; Manuel Quaresma; Klaus B Rohr; Anne-Marie Russell; Susanne Stowasser; Toby M Maher Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 16.671