Chest ACCP Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, H.
Right arrow Articles by Cherniack, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Smith, H.
Right arrow Articles by Cherniack, R.

Chest, Vol 101, 1577-1581, Copyright © 1992 by American College of Chest Physicians

ARTICLES

The utility of spirometry in the diagnosis of reversible airways obstruction

HR Smith, CG Irvin and RM Cherniack
Department of Medicine, National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, Denver.

Patients with suspected reversible airways obstruction (RAO) sometimes report subjective benefit after bronchodilator treatment despite no objective spirometric improvement. One possible explanation for this is improvement in volume-related or plethysmographic parameters in the absence of spirometric improvement. One hundred patients with RAO were assessed before and after inhaled bronchodilator to determine the prevalence of improvement by plethysmographic parameters in the absence of improvement in spirometric parameters. Spirometry alone (FEV1, FVC, and FEF25-75%) identified reversibility of airflow limitation in 82 patients. Reversibility was identified by body plethysmography (specific conductance [SGaw], thoracic gas volume [TGV], and isovolume maximum expiratory flow rates [IVMEF]) in 15 of the remaining patients. The percent predicted FEF25-75% at baseline was higher in patients who required plethysmography to identify reversibility, but could not be used to predict the lack of a spirometric response for any individual patient. We conclude that spirometry alone fails to identify reversibility in approximately 15 percent of patients, and that most of these patients can be identified by additional plethysmographic measurements of volume-related parameters. At any one point in time, multiple tests must be used together to adequately identify the majority of patients with reversible airways obstruction. Improvement in volume-related parameters may explain why some patients with RAO improve subjectively with bronchodilators but show no spirometric improvement.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
C. G. Irvin
Lessons from structure-function studies in asthma: myths and truths about what we teach
J Appl Physiol, July 1, 2006; 101(1): 7 - 9.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
F. C. Sciurba
Physiologic Similarities and Differences Between COPD and Asthma
Chest, August 1, 2004; 126(2_suppl_1): 117S - 124S.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1992 by the American College of Chest Physicians.