These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: FEV(1)/FEV(6) to diagnose airflow obstruction. Comparisons with computed tomography and morbidity indices.
    Author: Bhatt SP, Kim YI, Wells JM, Bailey WC, Ramsdell JW, Foreman MG, Jensen RL, Stinson DS, Wilson CG, Lynch DA, Make BJ, Dransfield MT.
    Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc; 2014 Mar; 11(3):335-41. PubMed ID: 24450777.
    Abstract:
    RATIONALE: FVC is a difficult maneuver for many patients, and forced expiratory volume in 6 seconds (FEV6) has been proposed as a surrogate for FVC for the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Previous studies have performed head-to-head comparisons of these thresholds but did not examine their relationships with structural lung disease, symptoms, or exacerbations. OBJECTIVES: To compare FEV1/FEV6 with FEV1/FVC in the diagnosis of COPD-related morbidity and structural lung disease as assessed by CT. METHODS: We analyzed data from a large multicenter cohort study (COPDGene) that included current and former smokers (age 45-80 yr). Accuracy and concordance between the two ratios in diagnosing structural COPD was compared using CT measures of emphysema and airway disease and COPD-related morbidity to assess how the two ratios compare in defining disease. RESULTS: A total of 10,018 subjects were included. FEV1/FEV6 showed excellent accuracy in diagnosing airflow obstruction using FEV1/FVC < 0.70 as a reference (area under curve, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.989-0.992; P < 0.001). FEV1/FEV6 < 0.73 had the best sum of sensitivity (92.1%; 95% CI, 90.8-92.4) and specificity (97.3%; 95% CI, 97.3-98.1). There was excellent agreement between the two diagnostic cutoffs (κ = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-0.91; P < 0.001). In comparison with control subjects and those positive by FEV1/FVC alone, subjects positive by FEV1/FEV6 alone had greater gas trapping and airway wall thickness, worse functional capacity, and a greater number of exacerbations on follow-up. These relationships held true when disease definitions were made using the lower limits of normal. CONCLUSIONS: FEV1/FEV6 can be substituted for FEV1/FVC in diagnosing airflow obstruction and may better predict COPD-related pathology and morbidity.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]