Demir Tuncalp, Ikitimur Hande Demirel, Koc Nihal, Yildirim Nurhayat
Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Turkey.
Respir Med. 2005 Jan;99(1):103-6. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2004.05.016.
There are recent reports regarding the use of forced expiratory volume in 6 s (FEV6) in place of forced expiratory vital capacity (FVC) in the detection of airway obstruction. We aimed to investigate the role of FEV6 in comparison with FVC in the evaluation of airway obstruction.
The pulmonary function tests (PFT) results of all 5114 patients, who had been tested in the pulmonary function laboratory between 1998 and 2003, were retrospectively analyzed to investigate the relationship between FEV6 and FVC.
We have found a mean difference of 95.35+/-121.7 (min=0, max=1050) ml (3.37%) when FVC and FEV6 values (FVC-FEV6) of all cases were compared. This difference was found to be higher (180 ml, 7.3%) in patients with airway obstruction. When FEV1/FVC is taken as the gold standard, FEV1/FEV6 had negative predictive value of 92.24% and a sensitivity of 86.09% in the detection of airway obstruction.
Although it is easier to use FEV6 in place of FVC, relatively low sensitivity in that setting may result in the underestimation of airway obstruction. This drawback should be kept in mind when FEV6 is utilized to detect airway obstruction.
最近有关于在气道阻塞检测中使用6秒用力呼气容积(FEV6)代替用力呼气肺活量(FVC)的报道。我们旨在研究FEV6与FVC相比在气道阻塞评估中的作用。
回顾性分析了1998年至2003年间在肺功能实验室接受检测的所有5114例患者的肺功能测试(PFT)结果,以研究FEV6与FVC之间的关系。
比较所有病例的FVC和FEV6值(FVC - FEV6)时,我们发现平均差异为95.35±121.7(最小值 = 0,最大值 = 1050)ml(3.37%)。在气道阻塞患者中,这一差异更高(180 ml,7.3%)。以FEV1/FVC作为金标准时,FEV1/FEV6在气道阻塞检测中的阴性预测值为92.24%,敏感性为86.09%。
虽然使用FEV6代替FVC更容易,但在这种情况下相对较低的敏感性可能导致对气道阻塞的低估。在利用FEV6检测气道阻塞时应牢记这一缺点。