Boggs P B, Bhat K D, Vekovius W A, Debo M S
Ann Allergy. 1982 Mar;48(3):139-42.
The clinical significance of Iso-volume FEF25-75% in assessing airway responsiveness to an inhaled bronchodilator was evaluated in 167 asthmatics who presented with variable degrees of airway dysfunction. Iso-volume FEF25-75% identified responsiveness in one patient (5%) out of 20 of the most dysfunctional asthmatics, in three (20%) out of 15 of the least dysfunctional asthmatics and over-all in four (8%) out of 47 asthmatics not showing significant responsiveness via the FEV1. Over-all, FEV1 identified significant responsiveness in more patients (68.6%) than did the Iso-volume FEF25-75% (61%). The authors conclude that the Iso-volume FEF25-75% adds little to the FEV1 in the assessment of obviously dysfunctional asthmatics, the FEF25-75% as conventionally measured is a relatively useless post-bronchodilator measurement and that the FEV1 remains the single best spirometric test with which to assess airway responsiveness in asthmatics.
在167例呈现不同程度气道功能障碍的哮喘患者中，评估了等容用力呼气流量25%-75%（Iso-volume FEF25-75%）在评估气道对吸入性支气管扩张剂反应性方面的临床意义。在20例功能障碍最严重的哮喘患者中，Iso-volume FEF25-75%仅识别出1例（5%）有反应性；在15例功能障碍最轻的哮喘患者中，有3例（20%）有反应性；在47例通过第1秒用力呼气量（FEV1）未显示出明显反应性的哮喘患者中，总体有4例（8%）有反应性。总体而言，与Iso-volume FEF25-75%（61%）相比，FEV1识别出有明显反应性的患者更多（68.6%）。作者得出结论，在评估明显功能障碍的哮喘患者时，Iso-volume FEF25-75%对FEV1的补充作用不大，传统测量的FEF25-75%作为支气管扩张剂使用后的测量指标相对无用，并且FEV1仍然是评估哮喘患者气道反应性的最佳单一肺量计检查。
