Spirometric changes in obstructive disease: after all, how much is significant?

Clinical and functional correlations of the difference between slow vital capacity and FVC

Objective:

To evaluate the relationship that the difference between slow vital capacity (SVC) and FVC (ΔSVC-FVC) has with demographic, clinical, and pulmonary function data.

Methods:

This was an analytical cross-sectional study in which participants completed a respiratory health questionnaire, as well as undergoing spirometry and plethysmography. The sample was divided into two groups: ΔSVC-FVC ≥ 200 mL and ΔSVC-FVC < 200 mL. The intergroup correlations were analyzed, and binomial logistic regression analysis was performed.

Results:

The sample comprised 187 individuals. In the sample as a whole, the mean ΔSVC-FVC was 0.17 ± 0.14 L, and 61 individuals (32.62%) had a ΔSVC-FVC ≥ 200 mL. The use of an SVC maneuver reduced the prevalence of nonspecific lung disease and of normal spirometry results by revealing obstructive lung disease (OLD). In the final logistic regression model (adjusted for weight and body mass index > 30 kg/m²), OLD and findings of air trapping (high functional residual capacity and a low inspiratory capacity/TLC ratio) were predictors of a ΔSVC-FVC ≥ 200 mL. The chance of a bronchodilator response was found to be greater in the ΔSVC-FVC ≥ 200 mL group: for FEV1 (OR = 4.38; 95% CI: 1.45-13.26); and for FVC (OR = 3.83; 95% CI: 1.26-11.71).

Conclusions:

The use of an SVC maneuver appears to decrease the prevalence of nonspecific lung disease and of normal spirometry results. Individuals with a ΔSVC-FVC ≥ 200 mL, which is probably the result of OLD and air trapping, are apparently more likely to respond to bronchodilator administration.

Lung volumes and airway resistance in patients with a possible restrictive pattern on spirometry

Objective:

Many patients with proportional reductions in FVC and FEV1 on spirometry show no reduction in TLC. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role that measuring lung volumes and airway resistance plays in the correct classification of patients with a possible restrictive pattern on spirometry.

Methods:

This was a prospective study involving adults with reduced FVC and FEV1, as well as an FEV1/FV(C) ratio within the predicted range. Restrictive lung disease (RLD) was characterized by TLC below the 5th percentile, as determined by plethysmography. Obstructive lung disease (OLD) was characterized by high specific airway resistance, significant changes in post-bronchodilator FEV1, or an FEF25-75% < 50% of predicted, together with a high RV/TLC ratio. Nonspecific lung disease (NLD) was characterized by TLC within the predicted range and no obstruction. Combined lung disease (CLD) was characterized by reduced TLC and findings indicative of airflow obstruction. Clinical diagnoses were based on clinical suspicion, a respiratory questionnaire, and the review of tests of interest.

Results:

We included 300 patients in the study, of whom 108 (36%) were diagnosed with RLD. In addition, 120 (40%) and 72 (24%) were diagnosed with OLD/CLD and NLD, respectively. Among the latter, 24 (33%) were clinically diagnosed with OLD. In this sample, 151 patients (50.3%) were obese, and obesity was associated with all patterns of lung disease.

Conclusions:

Measuring lung volumes and airway resistance is often necessary in order to provide an appropriate characterization of the pattern of lung disease in patients presenting with a spirometry pattern suggestive of restriction. Airflow obstruction is common in such cases.

Objetivo:

Muitos pacientes com redução proporcional de CVF e VEF1 na espirometria não têm CPT reduzida. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar o papel da medida dos volumes pulmonares e da resistência das vias aéreas para a classificação correta de pacientes com possível restrição à espirometria.

Métodos:

Estudo prospectivo de adultos com CVF e VEF1 reduzidos e relação VEF1/CV(F) na faixa prevista. Distúrbio ventilatório restritivo (DVR) foi definido por CPT < 5º percentil por pletismografia. Distúrbio ventilatório obstrutivo (DVO) foi caracterizado por resistência específica de vias aéreas elevada, resposta significativa do VEF1 pós-broncodilatador e/ou um FEF25-75% < 50% do previsto associado a uma relação VR/CPT elevada. Distúrbio ventilatório inespecífico (DVI) foi caracterizado por CPT na faixa prevista e ausência de obstrução. Distúrbio ventilatório combinado (DVC) foi caracterizado por CPT reduzida e achados indicativos de obstrução ao fluxo aéreo. Os diagnósticos clínicos foram baseados em suspeita clínica, um questionário respiratório e revisão de exames de interesse.

Resultados:

Foram incluídos 300 pacientes no estudo, dos quais 108 (36%) tiveram diagnóstico de DVR, enquanto 120 (40%) foram diagnosticados com DVO ou DVC e 72 (24%) com DVI. Destes últimos, 24 (33%) tinham diagnóstico clínico de DVO. Nesta amostra, 151 pacientes (50,3%) eram obesos, e isso se associou com todos os padrões de distúrbios funcionais.

Conclusões:

Medidas dos volumes pulmonares e da resistência das vias aéreas são frequentemente necessárias para a caracterização adequada do tipo de distúrbio funcional em casos com possível restrição à espirometria. A obstrução ao fluxo aéreo é comum nesses casos.