Otto-Yáñez Matías, Sarmento da Nóbrega Antônio José, Torres-Castro Rodrigo, Araújo Palomma Russelly Saldanha, Carvalho de Farias Catharinne Angélica, Dornelas De Andrade Armele de Fátima, Puppo Homero, Resqueti Vanessa Regiane, Fregonezi Guilherme Augusto de Freitas
Physical Therapy, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Programa de Doutorado em Biotecnologia RENORBIO, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil.
Front Physiol. 2020 Jun 9;11:537. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.00537. eCollection 2020.
To evaluate the concordance between the value of the actual maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) and the estimated value by multiplying the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV) and a different value established in the literature.
A retrospective study was conducted with healthy subjects and patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Five prediction formulas MVV were used for the comparison with the MVV values. Agreement between MVV measured and MVV obtained from five prediction equations were studied. FEV values were used to estimate MVV. Correlation and agreement analysis of the values was performed in two groups using the Pearson test and the Bland-Altman method; these groups were one group with 207 healthy subjects and the second group with 83 patients diagnosed with COPD, respectively.
We recruited 207 healthy subjects (105 women, age 47 ± 17 years) and 83 COPD patients (age 66 ± 6 years; 29 GOLD II, 30 GOLD III, and 24 GOLD IV) for the study. All prediction equations presented a significant correlation with the MVV value (from 0.38 to 0.86, < 0.05) except for the GOLD II subgroup, which had a poor agreement with measured MVV. In healthy subjects, the mean difference of the value of bias (and limits of agreement) varied between -3.9% (-32.8 to 24.9%), and 27% (-1.4 to 55.3%). In COPD patients, the mean difference of value of bias (and limits of agreement) varied between -4.4% (-49.4 to 40.6%), and 26.3% (-18.3 to 70.9%). The results were similar in the subgroup analysis.
The equations to estimate the value of MVV present a good degree of correlation with the real value of MVV, but they also show a poor concordance. For this reason, we should not use the estimated results as a replacement for the real value of MVV.
评估实际最大自主通气量(MVV)值与通过将第一秒用力呼气量(FEV)乘以文献中确定的不同值所得到的估计值之间的一致性。
对健康受试者和稳定期慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者进行回顾性研究。使用五个MVV预测公式与MVV值进行比较。研究实测MVV与从五个预测方程获得的MVV之间的一致性。用FEV值来估计MVV。使用Pearson检验和Bland - Altman方法对两组数据进行值的相关性和一致性分析;这两组分别为一组207名健康受试者和另一组83名诊断为COPD的患者。
我们招募了207名健康受试者(105名女性,年龄47±17岁)和83名COPD患者(年龄66±6岁;29名GOLD II级,30名GOLD III级,24名GOLD IV级)进行研究。除GOLD II亚组与实测MVV一致性较差外,所有预测方程与MVV值均呈现显著相关性(范围从0.38至0.86,<0.05)。在健康受试者中,偏差值(及一致性界限)的平均差异在 - 3.9%(-32.8至24.9%)和27%(-1.4至55.3%)之间变化。在COPD患者中,偏差值(及一致性界限)的平均差异在 - 4.4%(-49.4至40.6%)和26.3%(-18.3至70.9%)之间变化。亚组分析结果相似。
估计MVV值的方程与MVV实际值呈现出较好的相关性,但它们的一致性也较差。因此,我们不应将估计结果用作MVV实际值的替代。