Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Chest. 2005 May;127(5):1560-4.

FEV1/FEV6 and FEV6 as an alternative for FEV1/FVC and FVC in the spirometric detection of airway obstruction and restriction.

Author information

  • 1Department of General Practice, Dutch-Speaking University of Brussels (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Brussels, Belgium. Jan.Vandevoorde@vub.ac.be

Abstract

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.

PMID:
15888828
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk