Spirometry parameters used to define small airways obstruction in population-based studies: systematic review protocol

Detection of Small Airway Dysfunction in Asthmatic Patients by Spirometry and Impulse Oscillometry System

BACKGROUND

There is no gold standard in diagnosing SAD. Indicators of SAD are considered: (a) a value <65% of predicted values of two of three measures, FEF25-75, FEF50 e FEF75 (FEF+); (b) a value of FEV3/FEV6 < LLN (FEV3/FEV6+); (c) an IOS value of R5-R20 >0.07 kPa·s·L-1 (R5-R20+).

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to ascertain, in asthmatic patients, whether spirometry and IOS indicators agree in detecting SAD. We also assessed the relationship between spirometry and IOS indicators and clinical features of asthma.

METHODS

We prospectively recruited adult asthmatic patients. Anthropometric and clinical characteristics were recorded. All patients performed spirometry and IOS tests.

RESULTS

We enrolled 301 asthmatic patients (179 females; mean age 50 ± 16 years) with normal to moderately severe degree of airway obstruction; 91% were non-smokers, 74% were atopic, 28% had an exacerbation in the previous year, and 18% had a poor asthma control by ACT. SAD was diagnosed in 62% of patients through FEF+, in 40% through FEV3/FEV6+ and in 41% through R5-R20+. κ values were 0.49 between FEF+ and FEV3/FEV6+, 0.20 between FEF+ and R5-R20+, 0.07 between FEV3/FEV6+ and R5-R20+. R5-R20+ but not FEF+ and FEV3/FEV6+ was significantly associated with ACT score (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that in mild to moderately severe asthmatic patients, spirometry and IOS indicators are complementary in diagnosing SAD. Additionally, IOS indicator, but not spirometry ones, was related to asthma control.

Different response of the oxygen pathway in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension treated with pulmonary endarterectomy versus balloon pulmonary angioplasty

Background

Oxygen pathway limitation exists in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) and balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) are two effective interventions for CTEPH, but their effects and comparison of these two interventions on the oxygen pathway are not well demonstrated.

Methods

CTEPH patients with available pulmonary function test, hemodynamics, and blood gas analysis before and after the interventions were included for comparison of oxygen pathway in terms of lung ventilation, lung gas exchange, oxygen delivery, and oxygen extraction between these two interventions.

Results

The change in the percentage of the predicted forced expiratory volume in the 1 s (−3.4 ± 12.7 vs. 3.8 ± 8.7%, P = 0.006) and forced vital capacity (−5.5 ± 13.0 vs. 4.2 ± 9.9%, P = 0.001) among the PEA group (n = 24) and BPA group (n = 46) were significantly different. Patients in the PEA group had a significant increase in their arterial oxygen saturation (from 92.5 ± 3.6 to 94.6 ± 2.4%, P = 0.022), while those in the BPA group had no change, which could be explained by a significant improvement in ventilation/perfusion (−0.48 ± 0.53 vs. −0.17 ± 0.41, P = 0.016). Compared with patients post-BPA, patients post-PEA were characterized by higher oxygen delivery (756.3 ± 229.1 vs. 628.8 ± 188.5 ml/min, P = 0.016) and higher oxygen extraction (203.3 ± 64.8 vs. 151.2 ± 31.9 ml/min, P = 0.001).

Conclusion

Partial amelioration of the oxygen pathway limitations could be achieved in CTEPH patients treated with PEA and BPA. CTEPH patients post-PEA had better performance in lung gas exchange, oxygen delivery, and extraction, while those post-BPA had better lung ventilation. Cardiopulmonary rehabilitation may assist in improving the impairment of the oxygen pathway.

Spirometry parameters used to define small airways obstruction in population-based studies: systematic review

Background

The assessment of small airways obstruction (SAO) using spirometry is practiced in population-based studies. However, it is not clear what are the most used parameters and cut-offs to define abnormal results.

Methods

We searched three databases (Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar) for population-based studies, published by 1 May 2021, that used spirometry parameters to identify SAO and/or provided criteria for defining SAO. We systematically reviewed these studies and summarised evidence to determine the most widely used spirometry parameter and criteria for defining SAO. In addition, we extracted prevalence estimates and identified associated risk factors. To estimate a pooled prevalence of SAO, we conducted a meta-analysis and explored heterogeneity across studies using meta regression.

Results

Twenty-five studies used spirometry to identify SAO. The most widely utilised parameter (15 studies) was FEF_25–75, either alone or in combination with other measurements. Ten studies provided criteria for the definition of SAO, of which percent predicted cut-offs were the most common (5 studies). However, there was no agreement on which cut-off value to use. Prevalence of SAO ranged from 7.5% to 45.9%. As a result of high heterogeneity across studies (I² = 99.3%), explained by choice of spirometry parameter and WHO region, we do not present a pooled prevalence estimate.

Conclusion

There is a lack of consensus regarding the best spirometry parameter or defining criteria for identification of SAO. The value of continuing to measure SAO using spirometry is unclear without further research using large longitudinal data.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42021250206

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12931-022-01990-2.