Clinical Value of a Desktop Spirometer (HI-801) for Spirometry Screening.
10.4046/trd.2007.62.4.276
- Author:
Hye Sook CHOI
1
;
Cheon Woong CHOI
;
Myung Jae PARK
;
Hong Mo KANG
;
Jee Hong YOO
Author Information
1. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Screening;
Spirometry;
Desktop spirometer;
Laboratory spirometer
- MeSH:
Delivery of Health Care;
Humans;
Mass Screening*;
Peak Expiratory Flow Rate;
Respiratory Function Tests;
Spirometry*;
Tertiary Healthcare;
Ventilation
- From:Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
2007;62(4):276-283
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: A national health care initiative recommends routine spirometry screening of all smokers over age 45 or patients with respiratory symptoms. In response to the recommendation, new, simple, and inexpensive desktop spirometers for the purpose of promoting widespread spirometric screening were marketed. The performance of these spirometers was evaluated in vivo testing with healthy subjects. However, the clinical setting allows spirometric assessment of various pathologic combinations of flow and volume. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of a desktop spirometer to a standard laboratory spirometer, in a clinical setting with?pathologic pulmonary function. METHOD: In a health check-up center, where screening pulmonary funct test was performed using the HI-801 spirometer. Subjects who revealed the ventilation defect in screening spirometry, performed the spirometry again using the?standard Vmax spectra 22d spirometer in a tertiary care hospital pulmonary function laboratory. Pulmonary function test with both spirometer was performed according to the guidelines of the American Thoracic Society. RESULTS: 109 patients were enrolled. Pulmonary function measurements (FVC, FEV1, PEFR, FEF25%-75%) from the HI-801 correlated closely (r=0.94, 0.93, 0.81, 0.84, respectively) with those performed with the Vmax spectra 22d?and showed the good limits of agreement and differences between the 2 devices; FVC +0.35 L, FEV1 +0.16 L, PEFR +1.85 L/s, FEF25%-75% -0.13 L/s. With the exception of FEV1, FEF25%-75%, these differences were significant(p<0.05) but small. Conclusion: The HI-801 spirometer is comparable to the standard laboratory spirometer, Vmax spectra 22d, with high accurary for FEV1 and FVC and?acceptable differences for clinical use.
