Impact of body mass index on the predictive capacity of the COPD-6 device in the detection of airflow obstruction

Accuracy of portable spirometers in the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A meta-analysis

Portable spirometers has been approved for diagnosing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, their diagnostic accuracy has not been reviewed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the diagnostic value of portable spirometers in detecting COPD. A comprehensive literature search for relevant studies was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CNKI, Wan Fang, and Web of Science databases. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC), area under the curve (AUC), and other related indices were calculated using the bivariate mixed-effect model. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the source of heterogeneity. Thirty one studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic ratio (DOR), SROC, and AUC of the SROC of portable spirometers were 0.85 (0.81–0.88), 0.85 (0.81–0.88), 5.6 (4.4–7.3), 0.18 (0.15–0.22), 31 (21–46) and 0.91 (0.89–0.94), respectively. Among the three commonly used types of portable spirometers, the accuracy of PIKO-6 was higher (0.95) than that of COPD-6 (0.91) and PEF (0.82). Subgroup analysis indicated that the accuracy of a multi-indices portable spirometer was higher than that of a single-index one (P < 0.05). In addition, portable spirometry performed by professional technicians in tertiary hospitals was more accurate than for those conducted by trained technicians in primary care facilities and communities (P < 0.05). Moreover, the accuracy of studies conducted in developing country was superior to developed country (P < 0.05). Portable spirometers have high accuracy in the diagnosis of COPD. Multi-index COPD-6 and PIKO-6 displayed higher accuracy than others. Standardized training of instrument operators should be considered to achieve reliable results.

Utility of FEV1/FEV6 index in patients with multimorbidity hospitalized for decompensation of chronic diseases

Spirometry remains essential for the diagnosis of airway obstruction. Nevertheless, its performance in elderly hospitalized patients with multimorbidity can be difficult. The aim of this study is to assess the utility of the COPD-6 portable device in this population. We included all patients hospitalized for exacerbation of chronic diseases in a medical ward specialized in the care of multimorbidity patients, between September 2017 and May 2018. A questionnaire including sociodemographic, cognitive and functional impairment, among other variables, was completed the last day of admission. Subsequently, patients attempted to perform three valid respiratory manoeuvres with the COPD-6 device and then conventional spirometry. A total of 184 patients were included (mean age of 79.61 years, 55% men). Forty-seven (25.54%) patients were able to perform complete spirometric manoeuvres and 99 (53.8%) could perform a valid FEV1/FEV6 determination. The inability to perform a valid spirometry was related with the patient’s age, functional physical disability, cognitive impairment or the presence of delirium or dysphagia during admission. Only 9% of patients with a Mini Mental Cognitive Examination (MMEC) lower than 24 points could perform a valid spirometry. Of the patients with an MMEC < 24 points and unable to perform spirometry, 34% were able to complete the FEV1/FEV6 manoeuvres. No differences were found in the Charlson index, multimorbidity scale, number of domiciliary drugs, or length of stay between those patients able and those not able to perform respiratory manoeuvres. The agreement between the values for FEV1 measured with COPD-6 and those observed in the spirometry was good (r: 0.71; p<0.0001). Inability to perform a valid spirometry during hospitalization in elderly patients with multimorbidity is frequent and related with functional and cognitive impairment. FEV1/FEV6 determination using the COPD-6 portable device allows an important percentage of the patients with limitations to complete spirometric measurement.

Effects of Smoking and Physical Activity on the Pulmonary Function of Young University Nursing Students in Cáceres (Spain)

Background:

The simultaneous effect of physical activity (PA) and smoking on pulmonary function in young people remains unclear.

Propose:

The aim of this study was to determine the influence of smoking and PA on pulmonary function in young university students in Cáceres, Spain.

Methods:

A sample of 120 young nursing students was studied (60 smokers and 60 nonsmokers). All subjects underwent spirometry with a COPD-6 portable device, and their level of PA was quantified using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. The influence of PA and smoking on pulmonary function was determined by comparing hypotheses.

Results:

Significant differences were observed between smokers and nonsmokers in terms of percent forced expiratory volume in 1 second, percent forced expiratory volume in 6 seconds, lung age, and the difference between lung age and chronological age (LA–CA) in those who practiced mild PA. In the subjects who performed moderate and vigorous PA, these differences were not noted. In the intragroup analysis, significant differences were observed in smokers in terms of percent forced expiratory volume in 1 second, percent forced expiratory volume in 6 seconds, lung age, and LA–CA; however, in the control group, differences were only observed in terms of lung age and LA–CA. These findings were confirmed in the multivariate analysis.

Conclusions/Implications for Practice:

Our findings confirmed a deterioration in pulmonary function in smokers who did not perform moderate or vigorous PA. The level of PA performed was positively related to pulmonary function in smokers, whereas in nonsmokers, improvements were only significant in LA–CA.