Choi Inseon S, Koh Youngil I, Lim Ho
Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School and Research Institute of Medical Sciences, Gwangju, Korea.
Korean J Intern Med. 2002 Sep;17(3):174-9. doi: 10.3904/kjim.2002.17.3.174.
Several investigators have demonstrated a considerable disagreement between FEV1 and PEFR to assess the severity of airflow obstruction. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the discrepancy between the two measurements affects the assessment in the severity of acute asthma.
Thirty-five consecutive asthma patients measured both FEV1 and PEFR at 0, 1hr, 1, 3, 5, 7 days of an emergency room admission using a spirometer and a Ferraris PEFR meter. The degree of discrepancy between FEV1 and PEFR expressed as % predicted values was determined.
When predictive equations that recommended by the instrument manufacturers were used. PEFR measured with the PEFR meter (f-PEFR) was significantly higher than FEV1 at all time points, with 16.1% mean difference and unacceptable wide limits of agreement (-20.0-52.3%). The classification in severity was significantly different between FEV1 and f-PEFR (p < 0.001). The discrepancy was inter-instrumental in large part because f-PEFR was 10.1% higher than spirometric PEFR. Different predictive equations altered the degree of the differences but could not completely correct it.
These results indicate that f-PEFR values underestimate the severity of airflow obstruction in acute asthma despite using recommended predictive equations. Therefore, these confounding factors should be considered when the severity of airflow obstruction is assessed with PEFR.
几位研究者已证实在评估气流阻塞的严重程度时,第一秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)和呼气峰流速(PEFR)之间存在相当大的差异。本研究的目的是检验这两种测量方法之间的差异是否会影响对急性哮喘严重程度的评估。
35例连续的哮喘患者在急诊入院的0、1小时、1、3、5、7天使用肺量计和法拉利呼气峰流速仪测量FEV1和PEFR。确定以预测值百分比表示的FEV1和PEFR之间的差异程度。
当使用仪器制造商推荐的预测方程时。用呼气峰流速仪测量的PEFR(f-PEFR)在所有时间点均显著高于FEV1,平均差异为16.1%,一致性界限宽得不可接受(-20.0 - 52.3%)。FEV1和f-PEFR之间的严重程度分类有显著差异(p < 0.001)。这种差异在很大程度上是仪器间的,因为f-PEFR比肺量计测量的PEFR高10.1%。不同的预测方程改变了差异程度,但不能完全纠正它。
这些结果表明,尽管使用了推荐的预测方程,但f-PEFR值低估了急性哮喘气流阻塞的严重程度。因此,在用PEFR评估气流阻塞严重程度时应考虑这些混杂因素。