Llewellin Peter, Sawyer Gillian, Lewis Simon, Cheng Soo, Weatherall Mark, Fitzharris Penny, Beasley Richard
Department of Medicine, Wellington School of Medicine and Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Respirology. 2002 Dec;7(4):333-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1843.2002.00417.x.
International consensus guidelines suggest that in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), measurements of FEV1 and PEF are equivalent in the assessment of the degree of airflow obstruction when expressed as the per cent of predicted values.
In this retrospective study, 2,587 paired measurements of PEF and FEV1 performed by 101 adult patients with asthma (n = 56) and COPD (n = 45) attending an outpatient chest clinic were obtained. The mean differences between FEV1 and PEF measurements when expressed as the percentage of predicted values was determined. The level of agreement between the two measurements in the classification of asthma severity (life-threatening, severe, moderate and mild asthma determined by PEF or FEV1 measurements of <30%, 30-60%, 60-80%, and >80% of the predicted values, respectively) was determined.
There was considerable variability between measurements of FEV1 and PEF when expressed as % predicted values. In both asthma and COPD, the FEV1% predicted was smaller than the PEF % predicted, with the mean difference being -10.9% (95% CI, -12.8% to -8.9%) with limits of agreement of -35.4% to +13.6%. The weighted Kappa statistic for agreement was 0.59 (95% CI, 48-70%) in the classification of the severity of airflow obstruction.
When expressed as percentage of predicted values, PEF and FEV1 values are not equivalent. We recommend that guidelines be modified to state that across the spectrum of the severity of airflow obstruction there is considerable variability between measurements of FEV1 and PEF when expressed as % predicted such that the FEV1 may be as much as 35% lower or up to 15% higher than the PEF for patients with obstructive lung diseases.
国际共识指南表明,在哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)中,当以预测值的百分比表示时,FEV1和PEF的测量在评估气流阻塞程度方面是等效的。
在这项回顾性研究中,获取了101例成年哮喘患者(n = 56)和COPD患者(n = 45)在门诊胸部诊所进行的2587对PEF和FEV1测量值。确定了以预测值百分比表示的FEV1和PEF测量值之间的平均差异。确定了两种测量在哮喘严重程度分类(分别由PEF或FEV1测量值低于预测值的<30%、30 - 60%、60 - 80%和>80%确定的危及生命、重度、中度和轻度哮喘)中的一致性水平。
当以预测值百分比表示时,FEV1和PEF测量值之间存在相当大的变异性。在哮喘和COPD中,预测的FEV1%均小于预测的PEF%,平均差异为 - 10.9%(95%CI, - 12.8%至 - 8.9%),一致性界限为 - 35.4%至 + 13.6%。气流阻塞严重程度分类中一致性的加权Kappa统计量为0.59(95%CI,48 - 70%)。
当以预测值百分比表示时,PEF和FEV1值并不等效。我们建议修改指南,以说明在气流阻塞严重程度范围内,当以预测值百分比表示时,FEV1和PEF测量值之间存在相当大的变异性,对于阻塞性肺疾病患者,FEV1可能比PEF低多达35%或高多达15%。