10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The relationship between FEV1 and peak expiratory flow in patients with airways obstruction is poor.

      Chest
      Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Airway Obstruction, physiopathology, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Forced Expiratory Volume, physiology, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Multivariate Analysis, Peak Expiratory Flow Rate, Predictive Value of Tests, Regression Analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To evaluate the correlation between FEV1 and peak expiratory flow (PEF) values expressed as a percentage of their predicted value, and to assess factors influencing differences between the two measurements. Cross-sectional. Pulmonary function laboratory at a tertiary-level teaching hospital in northern India. A total of 6,167 adult patients showing obstructive pattern on spirometry over a 6-year period. None. There was considerable variability between percentage of predicted FEV1 (FEV1%) and percentage of predicted PEF (PEF%). Locally weighted least-square modeling revealed that PEF% underestimated [corrected] FEV1% in patients with less severe obstruction and overestimated [corrected] it in those with more severe obstruction. Using Bland-Altman analysis, PEF% underestimated FEV1% by a mean of only 0.7%; however, limits of agreement were wide (- 27.4 to + 28.8%), indicating that these two measurements cannot be used interchangeably. PEF% and FEV1% were > 5% apart in approximately three fourths and differed by > 10% in approximately one half of the patients. On multivariate analysis, discordance > 5% was significantly influenced by female gender (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.58) and increasing FEV1% (odds ratio, 1.09 for every 10% increase; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.14) but not by height or age. FEV1% and PEF% are not equivalent in many patients, especially women and those with less severe airflow limitation. Assumptions of parity between PEF% and FEV1% must be avoided.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article