Gleeson Shelagh, Mitchell Brian, Pasquarella Carol, Reardon Edward, Falsone Jack, Berman Lewis
Pulmonary Division, Department Medicine, Norwalk Hospital, 40 prospect Aveune, Bldg1, Apt 1G, Norwalk, CT 06850, USA.
Respir Med. 2006 Aug;100(8):1397-401. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2005.11.012. Epub 2006 Jan 4.
The National Lung Health Education Program recommends that primary care providers perform spirometry tests on cigarette smoking patients 45 years or older in order to detect airways obstruction and aid smoking cessation efforts [Ferguson GT, Enright Pl, Buist AS, et al. Office spirometry for lung health assessment in adults: a consensus statement from the national lung education program. Chest 2000; 117: 1146-61]. An abbreviated forced expiratory maneuver that requires exhalation for 6s (FEV6) has recently been proposed as a substitute for forced vital capacity (FVC) to facilitate performance of such spirometry. We set out to assess the accuracy of diagnosis of obstruction and abnormal pulmonary function using FEV6 in comparison to FVC in a community hospital population. One hundred pulmonary function tests performed at a community hospital were randomly selected and retrospectively analyzed. Sixty-three of the 100 tests had satisfactory 6-s expiration and were subject to further analysis. We compared the spirometric interpretation using Morris predictive equations for FEV1/FVC and Hankison predictive equations for FEV1/FVC and FEV1/FEV6. The Hankison set of equations is the only published reference formulas for prediction of FEV6. We found that versus our Morris gold standard, Hankison based FEV1/FVC interpretation was 100% sensitive and 67% specific for the diagnosis of obstruction and 100% sensitive and 65% specific for the diagnosis of any abnormality. The Hankison based FEV1/FEV6 interpretation was 97% sensitive and 47% specific for diagnosing obstruction and 100% sensitive and 50% specific for identifying any abnormality versus the Morris FVC based gold standard. In conclusion, in our hospital based pulmonary function laboratory, FEV6 based interpretation has excellent sensitivity for detection of spirometric abnormalities. However, its moderate specificity may hinder its utility as a screening test. Further testing is necessary to determine its reliability in different patient populations with less highly trained operators.
国家肺部健康教育计划建议,初级保健提供者应对45岁及以上的吸烟患者进行肺量计测试,以检测气道阻塞情况,并助力戒烟工作[弗格森·G·T、恩赖特·P·l、比斯特·A·S等。成人肺部健康评估的门诊肺量计检查:国家肺部教育计划的共识声明。《胸部》2000年;117: 1146 - 1161]。最近有人提议用一种需要呼气6秒的简化用力呼气动作(FEV6)来替代用力肺活量(FVC),以方便进行此类肺量计检查。我们着手评估在社区医院人群中,与FVC相比,使用FEV6诊断阻塞和肺功能异常的准确性。随机选取并回顾性分析了一家社区医院进行的100次肺功能测试。100次测试中有63次呼气6秒的情况令人满意,并进行了进一步分析。我们使用针对FEV1/FVC的莫里斯预测方程以及针对FEV1/FVC和FEV1/FEV6的汉金森预测方程,比较了肺量计解读结果。汉金森方程组是唯一已发表的用于预测FEV6的参考公式。我们发现,与我们的莫里斯金标准相比,基于汉金森的FEV1/FVC解读对阻塞诊断的敏感性为100%,特异性为67%,对任何异常诊断的敏感性为100%,特异性为65%。与基于莫里斯FVC的金标准相比,基于汉金森的FEV1/FEV6解读对阻塞诊断的敏感性为97%,特异性为47%,对识别任何异常的敏感性为100%,特异性为50%。总之,在我们医院的肺功能实验室中,基于FEV6的解读对检测肺量计异常具有出色的敏感性。然而,其中等的特异性可能会妨碍其作为筛查测试的效用。需要进一步测试以确定其在操作人员训练程度较低的不同患者群体中的可靠性。