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 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 Goldstein, M. F.
Right arrow Articles by Dunsky, E. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, M. F.
Right arrow Articles by Dunsky, E. H.

Chest, Vol 105, 1082-1088, Copyright © 1994 by American College of Chest Physicians

ARTICLES

Retrospective analyses of methacholine inhalation challenges

MF Goldstein, SM Pacana, DJ Dvorin and EH Dunsky
Department of Medicine, Hahnemann University School of Medicine, Philadelphia.

We retrospectively analyzed 198 methacholine inhalation challenges (MICs) of symptomatic patients with normal results of lung examinations, spirometry, and chest radiographs. During MIC, five parameters (FEV1, FEF25-75%, FVC, sGaw, TGV) were measured. Using established changes in these parameters at < or = 8 mg/ml methacholine, there were 175 positive tests (no false positives) and 23 negative tests (15 true negatives, 5 false negatives, and 3 unavailable for follow-up). The MIC sensitivity determined by FEV1 responses was significantly lower than the sensitivity using responses in either three (FEV1, FEF25-75%, and FVC; p < 0.001) or five (FEV1, FEF25-75%, FVC, sGaw, and TGV; p < 0.001) parameter sets. Sensitivities were 60.6 percent, 91.1 percent, and 97.2 percent, respectively. All positive MICs (100 percent) were identified by examining changes in the five- parameter set vs 97.3 percent in the three-parameter set; it was a significant difference at p < 0.01. We conclude that the measurement and analysis of non-FEV1 parameters in addition to FEV1 significantly increases the sensitivity of the MIC.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ChestHome page
M. F. Goldstein, B. A. Veza, E. H. Dunsky, D. J. Dvorin, G. A. Belecanech, and I. C. Haralabatos
Comparisons of Peak Diurnal Expiratory Flow Variation, Postbronchodilator FEV1 Responses, and Methacholine Inhalation Challenges in the Evaluation of Suspected Asthma
Chest, April 1, 2001; 119(4): 1001 - 1010.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
R. Crapo
Guidelines for Methacholine and Exercise Challenge Testing---1999 . THIS OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY WAS ADOPTED BY THE ATS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, JULY 1999
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., January 1, 2000; 161(1): 309 - 329.
[Full Text]


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