Differences between FEV6, FVC and VC at the diagnosis of obstructive ventilatory defect
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Publication Date: | 2022 |
Other Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | eng |
Source: | Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
Download full: | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/38686 |
Summary: | Introduction: The diagnosis of airway obstruction can be made through FEV1/FVC ratio <0.7 or FEV1/VC ratio < lower limit of normality (LLN). Several authors advocate that FEV1/FEV6 ratio is an alternative to diagnosing obstructive ventilatory defect, while others have determined that the best cut-off for this ratio (best combined sensitivity and specificity) is 0.73. Objective: To evaluate the non-inferiority of FEV1/FEV6 ratio < 0.73 when compared to FEV1/ FVC ratio < 0.7 and FEV1/VC < LLN in diagnosing airway obstruction. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the medical records from patients who underwent spirometry or plethysmography in a university central hospital from June 1st to December 31st, 2018 was carried out. Only medical records which included FEV1/FVC < 0.7 or FEV1/VC < LLN were selected, and these results were compared to FEV1/FEV6 ratio. Results: A total of 526 patients with obstructive ventilatory defect were identified by one of the two ratios described. Of these, 95.1%, 87.4% and 88.6% were obstructive by FEV1/FVC, FEV1/ VC, and FEV1/FEV6 ratio, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of FEV1/FEV6 in relation to FEV1/FVC ratio was 99.6% (p < 0.001) with a diagnostic efficacy of 92.8%, whereas the PPV of FEV1/FEV6 in relation to FEV1/VC was 91.0% (p < 0.001) and diagnostic efficacy was 85.2%. Most false negatives, comparing FEV6 with the other two tests, were found in patients with FEV1 > 70% (mild obstruction) and in individuals aged >50 years. Conclusions: FEV1/FEV6 < 0.73 may be a good alternative ratio, as it is non-inferior to FEV1/VC and FEV1/FVC in diagnosing obstructive ventilatory defect. |
id |
RCAP_a152fb3f3e3d65165c113c9efdabdb9f |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:comum.rcaap.pt:10400.26/38686 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
repository_id_str |
https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160 |
spelling |
Differences between FEV6, FVC and VC at the diagnosis of obstructive ventilatory defectobstructive ventilatory defectpulmonary diseaseairway obstructionFEV1/FVCFEV1/VCPortugalMadeira IslandIntroduction: The diagnosis of airway obstruction can be made through FEV1/FVC ratio <0.7 or FEV1/VC ratio < lower limit of normality (LLN). Several authors advocate that FEV1/FEV6 ratio is an alternative to diagnosing obstructive ventilatory defect, while others have determined that the best cut-off for this ratio (best combined sensitivity and specificity) is 0.73. Objective: To evaluate the non-inferiority of FEV1/FEV6 ratio < 0.73 when compared to FEV1/ FVC ratio < 0.7 and FEV1/VC < LLN in diagnosing airway obstruction. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the medical records from patients who underwent spirometry or plethysmography in a university central hospital from June 1st to December 31st, 2018 was carried out. Only medical records which included FEV1/FVC < 0.7 or FEV1/VC < LLN were selected, and these results were compared to FEV1/FEV6 ratio. Results: A total of 526 patients with obstructive ventilatory defect were identified by one of the two ratios described. Of these, 95.1%, 87.4% and 88.6% were obstructive by FEV1/FVC, FEV1/ VC, and FEV1/FEV6 ratio, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of FEV1/FEV6 in relation to FEV1/FVC ratio was 99.6% (p < 0.001) with a diagnostic efficacy of 92.8%, whereas the PPV of FEV1/FEV6 in relation to FEV1/VC was 91.0% (p < 0.001) and diagnostic efficacy was 85.2%. Most false negatives, comparing FEV6 with the other two tests, were found in patients with FEV1 > 70% (mild obstruction) and in individuals aged >50 years. Conclusions: FEV1/FEV6 < 0.73 may be a good alternative ratio, as it is non-inferior to FEV1/VC and FEV1/FVC in diagnosing obstructive ventilatory defect.2021 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Elsevier España, S.L.U.Repositório ComumSousa, C.S.Coelho, D.B.Amorim, P.Viana, P.Cruz-Martins, N.Drummond, M.2022-01-06T17:49:35Z2022-012022-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/38686eng0903-193610.1016/j.pulmoe.2021.11.008info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2025-04-11T02:17:37Zoai:comum.rcaap.pt:10400.26/38686Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-29T06:22:27.356268Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Differences between FEV6, FVC and VC at the diagnosis of obstructive ventilatory defect |
title |
Differences between FEV6, FVC and VC at the diagnosis of obstructive ventilatory defect |
spellingShingle |
Differences between FEV6, FVC and VC at the diagnosis of obstructive ventilatory defect Sousa, C.S. obstructive ventilatory defect pulmonary disease airway obstruction FEV1/FVC FEV1/VC Portugal Madeira Island |
title_short |
Differences between FEV6, FVC and VC at the diagnosis of obstructive ventilatory defect |
title_full |
Differences between FEV6, FVC and VC at the diagnosis of obstructive ventilatory defect |
title_fullStr |
Differences between FEV6, FVC and VC at the diagnosis of obstructive ventilatory defect |
title_full_unstemmed |
Differences between FEV6, FVC and VC at the diagnosis of obstructive ventilatory defect |
title_sort |
Differences between FEV6, FVC and VC at the diagnosis of obstructive ventilatory defect |
author |
Sousa, C.S. |
author_facet |
Sousa, C.S. Coelho, D.B. Amorim, P. Viana, P. Cruz-Martins, N. Drummond, M. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Coelho, D.B. Amorim, P. Viana, P. Cruz-Martins, N. Drummond, M. |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Comum |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Sousa, C.S. Coelho, D.B. Amorim, P. Viana, P. Cruz-Martins, N. Drummond, M. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
obstructive ventilatory defect pulmonary disease airway obstruction FEV1/FVC FEV1/VC Portugal Madeira Island |
topic |
obstructive ventilatory defect pulmonary disease airway obstruction FEV1/FVC FEV1/VC Portugal Madeira Island |
description |
Introduction: The diagnosis of airway obstruction can be made through FEV1/FVC ratio <0.7 or FEV1/VC ratio < lower limit of normality (LLN). Several authors advocate that FEV1/FEV6 ratio is an alternative to diagnosing obstructive ventilatory defect, while others have determined that the best cut-off for this ratio (best combined sensitivity and specificity) is 0.73. Objective: To evaluate the non-inferiority of FEV1/FEV6 ratio < 0.73 when compared to FEV1/ FVC ratio < 0.7 and FEV1/VC < LLN in diagnosing airway obstruction. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the medical records from patients who underwent spirometry or plethysmography in a university central hospital from June 1st to December 31st, 2018 was carried out. Only medical records which included FEV1/FVC < 0.7 or FEV1/VC < LLN were selected, and these results were compared to FEV1/FEV6 ratio. Results: A total of 526 patients with obstructive ventilatory defect were identified by one of the two ratios described. Of these, 95.1%, 87.4% and 88.6% were obstructive by FEV1/FVC, FEV1/ VC, and FEV1/FEV6 ratio, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of FEV1/FEV6 in relation to FEV1/FVC ratio was 99.6% (p < 0.001) with a diagnostic efficacy of 92.8%, whereas the PPV of FEV1/FEV6 in relation to FEV1/VC was 91.0% (p < 0.001) and diagnostic efficacy was 85.2%. Most false negatives, comparing FEV6 with the other two tests, were found in patients with FEV1 > 70% (mild obstruction) and in individuals aged >50 years. Conclusions: FEV1/FEV6 < 0.73 may be a good alternative ratio, as it is non-inferior to FEV1/VC and FEV1/FVC in diagnosing obstructive ventilatory defect. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-01-06T17:49:35Z 2022-01 2022-01-01T00:00:00Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/38686 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/38686 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
0903-1936 10.1016/j.pulmoe.2021.11.008 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
2021 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Elsevier España, S.L.U. |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
2021 Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia. Elsevier España, S.L.U. |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
collection |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
info@rcaap.pt |
_version_ |
1833602666582769664 |