Chest ACCP Education Calendar
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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 Roach, J.
Right arrow Articles by Phillips, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roach, J.
Right arrow Articles by Phillips, Y.

Chest, Vol 105, 667-672, Copyright © 1994 by American College of Chest Physicians

ARTICLES

Eucapnic voluntary hyperventilation as a bronchoprovocation technique. Comparison with methacholine inhalation in asthmatics

JM Roach, KM Hurwitz, GJ Argyros, AH Eliasson and YY Phillips
Department of Medicine, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C. 20307-5001.

Methacholine inhalation challenge (MIC) is probably the most widely used and best standardized test for nonspecific bronchoprovocation challenge (BPC). There has been increasing interest in developing "physical" stimuli such as eucapnic voluntary hyperventilation (EVH) with dry gas to assess airway hyperreactivity (AHR), because of inherent problems with using a pharmacologic agent in epidemiologic surveys. To our knowledge, no studies exist that compare MIC with EVH in known asthmatics. We conducted a prospective, randomized, crossover trial with a group of subjects (n = 16) who met the American Thoracic Society definition of asthma with these objectives: (1) to compare the sensitivity of EVH with MIC; (2) to compare the quantitative response of one test with the response to the other challenge; and (3) to correlate the response of both tests with symptoms, serum IgE levels, and serum eosinophil counts. We found that (1) EVH was positive in 75 percent of cases and MIC was positive in 81 percent of cases; one subject reacted to EVH but not to MIC and vice-versa. (2) The quantitative response to one test correlated with the response to the other test (r = -0.60, p = 0.01). (3) There was a correlation between severity of asthma symptoms and the response to EVH (r = 0.62; p = 0.01), but not to MIC. (4) Response to MIC (log PD20), but not EVH, correlated with serum IgE level (r = -0.53, p = 0.04). We suggest that EVH may be used for the initial assessment of AHR in the evaluation of asthma. Eucapnic voluntary hyperventilation is a sensitive measure of AHR and it correlates well with symptoms. Furthermore, though these points were not addressed in our study, it is more physiologic than MIC, and it is easy and less expensive to perform.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ChestHome page
Y. Y. Phillips and R. D. Schreiner
Streamlining Methacholine Challenge Testing
Chest, December 1, 2001; 120(6): 1763 - 1765.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Sports. Med.Home page
S D Anderson, G J Argyros, H Magnussen, and K Holzer
Provocation by eucapnic voluntary hyperpnoea to identify exercise induced bronchoconstriction
Br. J. Sports Med., October 1, 2001; 35(5): 344 - 347.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American College of Chest Physicians.