Suppr超能文献

FEV6、FVC 和 VC 在诊断阻塞性通气功能障碍方面的差异。

Differences between FEV6, FVC and VC at the diagnosis of obstructive ventilatory defect.

机构信息

Hospital Central do Funchal, Portugal.

Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João - Porto, Portugal.

出版信息

Pulmonology. 2024 Mar-Apr;30(2):170-173. doi: 10.1016/j.pulmoe.2021.11.008. Epub 2022 Jan 2.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The diagnosis of airway obstruction can be made through FEV1/FVC ratio <0.7 or FEV1/VC ratio < lower limit of normality (LLN). Several authors advocate that FEV1/FEV6 ratio is an alternative to diagnosing obstructive ventilatory defect, while others have determined that the best cut-off for this ratio (best combined sensitivity and specificity) is 0.73.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the non-inferiority of FEV1/FEV6 ratio < 0.73 when compared to FEV1/FVC ratio < 0.7 and FEV1/VC < LLN in diagnosing airway obstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the medical records from patients who underwent spirometry or plethysmography in a university central hospital from June 1st to December 31st, 2018 was carried out. Only medical records which included FEV1/FVC < 0.7 or FEV1/VC < LLN were selected, and these results were compared to FEV1/FEV6 ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 526 patients with obstructive ventilatory defect were identified by one of the two ratios described. Of these, 95.1%, 87.4% and 88.6% were obstructive by FEV1/FVC, FEV1/VC, and FEV1/FEV6 ratio, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of FEV1/FEV6 in relation to FEV1/FVC ratio was 99.6% (p < 0.001) with a diagnostic efficacy of 92.8%, whereas the PPV of FEV1/FEV6 in relation to FEV1/VC was 91.0% (p < 0.001) and diagnostic efficacy was 85.2%. Most false negatives, comparing FEV6 with the other two tests, were found in patients with FEV1 > 70% (mild obstruction) and in individuals aged >50 years.

CONCLUSIONS

FEV1/FEV6 < 0.73 may be a good alternative ratio, as it is non-inferior to FEV1/VC and FEV1/FVC in diagnosing obstructive ventilatory defect.

摘要

介绍

气道阻塞的诊断可以通过 FEV1/FVC 比值<0.7 或 FEV1/VC 比值<正常下限(LLN)来实现。一些作者主张 FEV1/FEV6 比值是诊断阻塞性通气缺陷的替代方法,而另一些作者则确定该比值的最佳截断值(最佳综合敏感性和特异性)为 0.73。

目的

评估 FEV1/FEV6 比值<0.73 与 FEV1/FVC 比值<0.7 和 FEV1/VC<LLN 诊断气道阻塞的非劣效性。

方法

对 2018 年 6 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日在一所大学中心医院进行肺量计或体积描记术的患者的病历进行回顾性分析。仅选择包括 FEV1/FVC<0.7 或 FEV1/VC<LLN 的病历,并将这些结果与 FEV1/FEV6 比值进行比较。

结果

通过上述两种比值中的一种发现 526 例阻塞性通气缺陷患者。其中,95.1%、87.4%和 88.6%的患者分别通过 FEV1/FVC、FEV1/VC 和 FEV1/FEV6 比值诊断为阻塞性。FEV1/FEV6 与 FEV1/FVC 比值相比的阳性预测值(PPV)为 99.6%(p<0.001),诊断效能为 92.8%,而 FEV1/FEV6 与 FEV1/VC 相比的 PPV 为 91.0%(p<0.001),诊断效能为 85.2%。比较 FEV6 与其他两种测试时,大多数假阴性出现在 FEV1>70%(轻度阻塞)和年龄>50 岁的患者中。

结论

FEV1/FEV6<0.73 可能是一个很好的替代比值,因为它在诊断阻塞性通气缺陷方面与 FEV1/VC 和 FEV1/FVC 无差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验