COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of FEV6 and FVC for detection of airway obstruction in a community hospital pulmonary function laboratory.

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.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app