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 Johns, D. P.
Right arrow Articles by Walters, E. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Johns, D. P.
Right arrow Articles by Walters, E. H.
(Chest. 1995;107:1045-1048.)
© 1995 American College of Chest Physicians

Effect of a Microaerosol Barrier Filter on the Measurement of Lung Function

David P. Johns CBiol, MIBiol1; Corrie Ingram BSc1; Helen Booth MBBS1; Trevor J. Williams MBBS1; and E. Haydn Walters BM, BCh, FCCP1

1 From the Department of Respiratory Medicine, Alfred Hospital, Prahran, Victoria, Australia

Study objective: A disposable barrier filter (Pall Biomedical, United Kingdom) was developed to prevent the contamination of lung function equipment in clinical use. The aims of this study were to examine its resistance characteristics and to determine the effect of the filter on clinical measurements of lung function.

Measurements: Twenty-one randomly selected patients and four normal subjects had lung function measured with and without the filter between the mouth and measuring equipment. Measurements of ventilatory function were made with a pneumotachograph (Lilly; Hoechberg, Germany), total lung capacity and airway resistance by constant volume plethysmography, and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide by the single breath method. Resistance was determined in five unused filters over the flow range 1 to 12 L/s and at a single flow rate (12 L/s) just after a normal subject expired 20 forced vital capacity (FVC) breaths through each of them.

Results: The resistance (mean±SD) of unused filters was 0.19±0.02 cm H2O/L/s at 1 L/s and increased linearly to 0.56±0.02 cm H2O/L/s at 12 L/s. There was no significant increase in resistance after use. The addition of the filter to the breathing circuit caused statistically significant decreases in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (0.044±0.08 L, p=0.014) and peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) (0.47±0.073 L/s, p=0.004). The filter did not affect other indices of lung function.

Conclusion: The filter caused a statistically significant reduction in FEV1 and PEFR; however, this difference was believed not to affect the clinical utility of routine lung function testing.

Key Words: cross-infection • flow resistance • lung function testing

Submitted on February 22, 1994
Accepted on August 5, 2007




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur Respir JHome page
M. R. Miller, R. Crapo, J. Hankinson, V. Brusasco, F. Burgos, R. Casaburi, A. Coates, P. Enright, C. P. M v. d. Grinten, P. Gustafsson, et al.
General considerations for lung function testing
Eur. Respir. J., July 1, 2005; 26(1): 153 - 161.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch. Dis. Child.Home page
A W A Kamps, K Vermeer, R J Roorda, and P L P Brand
Effect of bacterial filters on spirometry measurements
Arch. Dis. Child., October 1, 2001; 85(4): 346 - 347.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ThoraxHome page
D. P Johns, C. M Ingram, S. Khov, P. D Rochford, and E H. Walters
Effect of breathing circuit resistance on the measurement of ventilatory function
Thorax, November 1, 1998; 53(11): 944 - 948.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American College of Chest Physicians.