Annette Kainu1, Ari Lindqvist2, Seppo Sarna3, Bo Lundbäck4, Anssi Sovijärvi5. 1. Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Laboratory Department, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 2. Research Unit of Pulmonary Diseases, Laboratory Department, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 3. Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 4. Department of Medicine/Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 5. Division of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Laboratory Department, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland; Department of Medicine, and the Division of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Laboratory Department, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most studies evaluating bronchodilation in flow-volume spirometry have been conducted in patients with obstructive airways diseases, but less is known about bronchodilation responses in the general population or in healthy subjects. METHODS: We evaluated an urban population sample of 628 adults (260 men, 368 women) aged 25 to 74 years with flow-volume spirometry using inhalation of 0.4 mg of asalbutamol aerosol with a spacer device for bronchodilation. On the basis of a structured interview, a subgroup of 219 healthy, asymptomatic nonsmokers was selected. RESULTS: In the population sample, the average increase in FEV(1) from baseline after salbutamol inhalation was 77.2 mL (SD, 109.7 mL) or 2.5% (SD, 3.9%). In healthy asymptomatic nonsmokers, the mean change in FEV(1) was 62.0 mL (SD, 89.7 mL) or 1.8% (SD, 2.6%). In the whole population, the 95th percentile limit of the increase in FEV(1) was 8.5%, while it was 5.9% among healthy asymptomatic nonsmokers. The absolute change in FEV(1) correlated significantly with baseline FVC (p < 0.01). The FEV(1)/FVC ratio at baseline was the strongest influencing factor for the bronchodilation response. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that a significant increase in FEV(1) from baseline in a bronchodilation test is around 9% in an urban population. The level of the significant absolute increase in FEV(1) seems to depend on FVC. Low baseline FEV(1)/FVC ratio, reflecting airflow limitation, is the strongest determinant for FEV(1) response to bronchodilation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Most studies evaluating bronchodilation in flow-volume spirometry have been conducted in patients with obstructive airways diseases, but less is known about bronchodilation responses in the general population or in healthy subjects. METHODS: We evaluated an urban population sample of 628 adults (260 men, 368 women) aged 25 to 74 years with flow-volume spirometry using inhalation of 0.4 mg of a salbutamol aerosol with a spacer device for bronchodilation. On the basis of a structured interview, a subgroup of 219 healthy, asymptomatic nonsmokers was selected. RESULTS: In the population sample, the average increase in FEV(1) from baseline after salbutamol inhalation was 77.2 mL (SD, 109.7 mL) or 2.5% (SD, 3.9%). In healthy asymptomatic nonsmokers, the mean change in FEV(1) was 62.0 mL (SD, 89.7 mL) or 1.8% (SD, 2.6%). In the whole population, the 95th percentile limit of the increase in FEV(1) was 8.5%, while it was 5.9% among healthy asymptomatic nonsmokers. The absolute change in FEV(1) correlated significantly with baseline FVC (p < 0.01). The FEV(1)/FVC ratio at baseline was the strongest influencing factor for the bronchodilation response. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that a significant increase in FEV(1) from baseline in a bronchodilation test is around 9% in an urban population. The level of the significant absolute increase in FEV(1) seems to depend on FVC. Low baseline FEV(1)/FVC ratio, reflecting airflow limitation, is the strongest determinant for FEV(1) response to bronchodilation.
Authors: Robert S Tepper; Robert S Wise; Ronina Covar; Charles G Irvin; Carolyn M Kercsmar; Monica Kraft; Mark C Liu; George T O'Connor; Stephen P Peters; Ronald Sorkness; Alkis Togias Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Jacqueline A Pongracic; Rebecca Z Krouse; Denise C Babineau; Edward M Zoratti; Robyn T Cohen; Robert A Wood; Gurjit K Khurana Hershey; Carolyn M Kercsmar; Rebecca S Gruchalla; Meyer Kattan; Stephen J Teach; Christine C Johnson; Leonard B Bacharier; James E Gern; Steven M Sigelman; Peter J Gergen; Alkis Togias; Cynthia M Visness; William W Busse; Andrew H Liu Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Wan C Tan; William M Vollmer; Bernd Lamprecht; David M Mannino; Anamika Jithoo; Ewa Nizankowska-Mogilnicka; Filip Mejza; Thorarinn Gislason; Peter G J Burney; A Sonia Buist Journal: Thorax Date: 2012-04-29 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Dennis L Kelleher; Rashmi S Mehta; Bernadette M Jean-Francois; Andrew F Preece; James Blowers; Glenn D Crater; Paul Thomas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Wan C Tan; Jean Bourbeau; Paul Hernandez; Kenneth R Chapman; Robert Cowie; J Mark FitzGerald; Shawn Aaron; Darcy D Marciniuk; Francois Maltais; A Sonia Buist; Denis E O'Donnell; Don D Sin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: André Luis Pinto Soares; Carlos Alberto de Castro Pereira; Silvia Carla Rodrigues Journal: J Bras Pneumol Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.624