Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital Wusong Branch, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
BMC Pulm Med. 2024 Aug 2;24(1):380. doi: 10.1186/s12890-024-03191-7.
Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) rely on both internal resistance and patients' inspiratory capacity for effective operation. Optimal inspiratory technique is crucial for DPI users. This study assessed the accuracy and repeatability of two available devices, PF810® and In-Check DIAL®, and analyzed their measurement errors and consistency in detecting inspiratory capacity.
The accuracy and repeatability of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and forced inspiratory vital capacity (FIVC) against various internal resistances of the two devices were assessed using standard waveforms generated by a breathing simulator. The agreement of PIF measurements between the two devices in healthy volunteers and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients was analyzed with the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman graphical analysis.
PF810® showed great accuracy and repeatability in measuring PIF, except for square waveforms at the lowest flow rate (20 L/min). In-Check DIAL® exhibited poor accuracy against high resistance levels. In scenarios with no resistance, In-Check DIAL® had significantly smaller measurement errors than PF810®, but larger errors against high resistance levels. The two devices showed excellent agreement (ICC > 0.80, P < 0.05), except for healthy volunteers against medium to high resistance (R3-R5) where the ICC was insignificant. Bland-Altman plots indicated small disagreements between the two devices for both healthy volunteers and COPD patients.
In-Check DIAL® exhibited poor accuracy and larger measurement errors than PF810® when detecting PIFs against higher internal resistances. However, its good performance against lower internal resistances, along with its cost-effectiveness and convenience made it appropriate for primary care. PF810® showed good accuracy and repeatability and could detect additional parameters of inspiratory capacity beyond PIF, though required further studies to confirm its clinical benefits.
干粉吸入器(DPIs)的有效运作既依赖于内部阻力,也依赖于患者的吸气能力。最佳的吸气技术对于 DPI 用户至关重要。本研究评估了两种可用设备 PF810® 和 In-Check DIAL® 的准确性和可重复性,并分析了它们在检测吸气容量方面的测量误差和一致性。
使用呼吸模拟器生成的标准波形评估两种设备在不同内部阻力下测量峰吸气流速(PIF)和强制吸气肺活量(FIVC)的准确性和可重复性。采用组内相关系数和 Bland-Altman 图形分析评估两种设备在健康志愿者和慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者中 PIF 测量值的一致性。
PF810® 在测量 PIF 方面表现出出色的准确性和可重复性,除了在最低流速(20 L/min)时的方波。In-Check DIAL® 在高阻力水平下表现出较差的准确性。在无阻力的情况下,In-Check DIAL® 的测量误差明显小于 PF810®,但在高阻力水平下误差较大。两种设备具有极好的一致性(ICC>0.80,P<0.05),除了健康志愿者在中至高阻力(R3-R5)下的 ICC 不显著。Bland-Altman 图表明两种设备在健康志愿者和 COPD 患者中均存在较小的差异。
在检测高内部阻力下的 PIF 时,In-Check DIAL® 的准确性较差,测量误差较大,而 PF810® 的准确性较好。然而,它在低内部阻力下的良好性能,以及其成本效益和便利性使其适合于初级保健。PF810® 表现出良好的准确性和可重复性,除了 PIF 之外还可以检测吸气容量的其他参数,尽管需要进一步的研究来证实其临床益处。