Normal limits for oscillometric bronchodilator responses and relationships with clinical factors

Bronchodilator responsiveness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: prevalence, significance, and clinical implications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) is often considered a key feature distinguishing asthma from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, recent evidence suggests that BDR alone may not be a reliable discriminator between these conditions. There is still no consensus on BDR definitions and testing protocols. Additionally, it remains unclear whether BDR is linked to a specific COPD phenotype or influences treatment responses. Our review of recent literature attempts to clarify some of these issues.

RECENT FINDINGS

A significant proportion of COPD patients demonstrate BDR, but the variability in testing procedures and definitions makes it challenging to draw any definite conclusion. There is no evident association between BDR and specific COPD characteristics. A few studies suggest that BDR may be associated with marginally better treatment response and disease outcomes in COPD. The impact of recent changes in BDR definitions on clinical practice remains to be fully understood.

SUMMARY

There is still no clear, clinically relevant threshold to define BDR. BDR is an unreliable discriminator to differentiate asthma from COPD and is not consistently linked to any specific COPD phenotype, treatment response, or disease outcomes. Further research is needed to refine the definitions and implications of BDR in COPD.

Oscillometry in the diagnosis, assessment, and monitoring of asthma in children and adults

Diagnosing asthma typically relies on clinical history, physical examination, and objective lung function test results. Spirometry, the gold standard for assessing lung function, is universally recommended for the diagnostic, assessment, and monitoring of asthma. It requires maximal respiratory effort that limits cooperation in certain populations and has limitations in detecting small airway dysfunction. Oscillometry requires minimal patient effort, is noninvasive, and provides valuable information on both large and small airways. Recent task force reports have suggested oscillometry as an alternative or a complementary lung function test to spirometry in the management of individuals with asthma. This review explores the scientific evidence and psychometric properties regarding oscillometry in the main purposes served by lung function testing in asthma, namely diagnosis, assessment of control and future risk, as well as longitudinal monitoring, including clinical utility. Furthermore, it addressed challenges and facilitators to implementation and future directions regarding its positioning as lung function testing in individuals with asthma.

Small airway dysfunction measured by impulse oscillometry is associated with exacerbations and poor symptom control in patients with asthma treated in a tertiary hospital subspecialist airways disease clinic

Introduction

Small airways dysfunction contributes to asthma pathophysiology and clinical outcomes including exacerbations and asthma control. Respiratory oscillometry is a simple, non-invasive and effort independent lung function test that provides vital information about small airway function. However, interpretation and clinical utility of respiratory oscillometry has been in part limited by lack of agreed parameters and the respective cutoffs. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of small airways dysfunction based on published impulse oscillometry (IOS) definition in patients with asthma referred to a tertiary asthma clinic and the extent to which it correlates with asthma clinical outcomes.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients with asthma managed in the severe asthma clinic between January 2019 and December 2022 who underwent routine lung function tests with oscillometry and spirometry. Small airways dysfunction was determined from various published IOS parameter cutoffs, and the data were analysed to determine correlations between IOS parameters and asthma outcomes.

Results

Amongst the 148 patients, the prevalence of small airways dysfunction ranged from 53% to 78% depending on the defining oscillometry parameter. All oscillometry parameters correlated with the severity of airflow obstruction (FEV1% predicted, p < 0.001). Several oscillometry parameters correlated with asthma symptom burden, the strongest correlation was seen for frequency dependent resistance (R5-R20) with scores of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ6) (Spearman's rank coefficient 0.213, p = 0.028) and Asthma Control Test (ACT) (Spearman's rank coefficient -0.248, p = 0.012). R5-R20 was predictive of poor asthma control defined by ACQ6 >1.5 (OR 2.97, p = 0.022) or ACT <20 (OR 2.44, p = 0.055). Small airways dysfunction defined by R5-R20 and area under the reactance curve (AX) also significantly increases asthma exacerbation risk (OR 2.60, p = 0.02 and OR 2.31, p = 0.03 respectively).

Conclusion

Respiratory oscillometry is a sensitive measure of small airways dysfunction that should complement spirometry in the routine assessment of asthma. Small airways dysfunction is highly prevalent in patients with asthma referred to a tertiary asthma clinic. R5-R20 was the metric most predictive in identifying patients at risk of asthma exacerbations and poor asthma control.

Clinical characterization and outcomes of impulse oscillometry-defined bronchodilator response: an ECOPD cohort-based study

BACKGROUND

The clinical significance of the impulse oscillometry-defined small airway bronchodilator response (IOS-BDR) is not well-known. Accordingly, this study investigated the clinical characteristics of IOS-BDR and explored the association between lung function decline, acute respiratory exacerbations, and IOS-BDR.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from an Early Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (ECOPD) cohort subset and were followed up for two years with visits at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was defined as a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio < 0.70. IOS-BDR was defined as meeting any one of the following criteria: an absolute change in respiratory system resistance at 5 Hz ≤ - 0.137 kPa/L/s, an absolute change in respiratory system reactance at 5 Hz ≥ 0.055 kPa/L/s, or an absolute change in reactance area ≤ - 0.390 kPa/L. The association between IOS-BDR and a decline in lung function was explored with linear mixed-effects model. The association between IOS-BDR and the risk of acute respiratory exacerbations at the two-year follow-up was analyzed with the logistic regression model.

RESULTS

This study involved 466 participants (92 participants with IOS-BDR and 374 participants without IOS-BDR). Participants with IOS-BDR had higher COPD assessment test and modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale scores, more severe emphysema, air trapping, and rapid decline in FVC than those without IOS-BDR over 2-year follow-up. IOS-BDR was not associated with the risk of acute respiratory exacerbations at the 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The participants with IOS-BDR had more respiratory symptoms, radiographic structural changes, and had an increase in decline in lung function than those without IOS-BDR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1900024643. Registered on 19 July, 2019.

Oscillometry and spirometry are not interchangeable when assessing the bronchodilator response in children and young adults born preterm

INTRODUCTION

The European Respiratory Society Oscillometry Taskforce identified that clinical correlates of bronchodilator responses are needed to advance oscillometry in clinical practice. The understanding of bronchodilator-induced oscillometry changes in preterm lung disease is poor. Here we describe a comparison of bronchodilator assessments performed using oscillometry and spirometry in a population born very preterm and explore the relationship between bronchodilator-induced changes in respiratory function and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Participants aged 6-23 born ≤32 (N = 288; 132 with bronchopulmonary dysplasia) and ≥37 weeks' gestation (N = 76, term-born controls) performed spirometry and oscillometry. A significant bronchodilator response (BDR) to 400 μg salbutamol was classified according to published criteria.

RESULTS

A BDR was identified in 30.9% (n = 85) of preterm-born individuals via spirometry and/or oscillometry, with poor agreement between spirometry and oscillometry definitions (k = 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-0.40, p < .001). Those born preterm with a BDR by oscillometry but not spirometry had increased wheeze (33% vs. 11%, p = .010) and baseline resistance (Rrs5 z-score mean difference (MD) = 0.86, 95% CI 0.07-1.65, p = .025), but similar baseline spirometry to the group without a BDR (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1 ] z-score MD = -0.01, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.68, p > .999). Oscillometry was more feasible than spirometry (95% success rate vs. 85% (FEV1 ), 69% (forced vital capacity) success rate, p < .001), however being born preterm did not affect test feasibility.

CONCLUSION

In the preterm population, oscillometry is a feasible and clinically useful supportive test to assess the airway response to inhaled salbutamol. Changes measured by oscillometry reflect related but distinct physiological changes to those measured by spirometry, and thus these tests should not be used interchangeably.

Reference equations using segmented regressions for impulse oscillometry in healthy subjects aged 2.7-90 years

Background

Published reference equations for impulse oscillometry (IOS) usually encompass a specific age group but not the entire lifespan. This may lead to discordant predicted values when two or more non-coincident equations can be applied to the same person, or when a person moves from one equation to the next non-convergent equation as he or she gets older. Thus, our aim was to provide a single reference equation for each IOS variable that could be applied from infancy to old age.

Methods

This was an ambispective cross-sectional study in healthy nonsmokers, most of whom lived in Mexico City, who underwent IOS according to international standards. A multivariate piecewise linear regression, also known as segmented regression, was used to obtain reference equations for each IOS variable.

Results

In a population of 830 subjects (54.0% female) aged 2.7 to 90 years (54.8% children ≤12 years), segmented regression estimated two breakpoints for age in almost all IOS variables, except for R5-R20 in which only one breakpoint was detected. With this approach, multivariate regressions including sex, age, height and body mass index as independent variables were constructed, and coefficients for calculating predicted value, lower and upper limits of normal, percentage of predicted and z-score were obtained.

Conclusions

Our study provides IOS reference equations that include the major determinants of lung function, i.e. sex, age, height and body mass index, that can be easily implemented for subjects of almost any age.

Differences in respiratory oscillometry measurements using mouthpiece, mouth, and nasal mask in healthy adults

Airway resistance measurements using oscillometry provide a potential alternative to spirometry in assessing airway obstruction and dynamics due to measurements taken during tidal breathing. Oscillometry typically requires participants to form a tight seal around a mouthpiece that can prove challenging for some people. To address this challenge, we conducted a prospective study to evaluate the effect of different interfaces like mouthpiece, mouth mask, and nasal mask on respiratory impedance results from oscillometry in a cohort of healthy adults. Ten healthy adults [7 females; mean age: 38.9 yr (SD ±15.5)] underwent oscillometry using each of the three interfaces. We measured resistance at 5 Hz (Rrs₅), frequency dependence of resistance at 5-20 Hz (Rrs_5-20), and reactance area (Ax). Rrs₅ was not different when using the mouthpiece compared with the mouth mask [mean 2.98 cmH₂O/L/s (SD ±0.68) vs. mean 3.2 cmH₂O/L/s (SD ±0.81); P = 0.92; 95% CI -0.82 to +0.38], respectively. Nasal mask Rrs₅ measurements were significantly higher than mouthpiece measurements (mean 7.31 cmH₂O/L/s; SD ±2.62; P < 0.01; 95%CI -6.91 to -1.75). With Ax₅, we found a mean of 4.01 cmH₂O/L (SD ±2.04) with the mouth mask compared with a mean of 4.02 cmH₂O/L (SD ±1.87; P = 1.0 95% CI -1.86 to +1.87) for the mouthpiece, however, we found a significant difference between the mouthpiece and nasal mask for Ax (mean = 10.71; SD ±7.0 H₂O/L; P = 0.04, 95% CI -12.96 to -0.43). Our findings show that oscillometry using a mouth mask may be just as effective as using a mouthpiece in assessing airway dynamics and resistance.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This is the first study to compare the use of different interfaces: mouthpiece, mouth mask, and nasal mask, for oscillometry in an adult population. We report that using a mouth mask in oscillometry may provide a valid alternative to a mouthpiece in cohorts who may struggle to form the required tight seal that is typically required in oscillometry or spirometry.

Reference equations for oscillometry and their differences among populations: a systematic scoping review

Respiratory oscillometry is gaining global attention over traditional pulmonary function tests for its sensitivity in detecting small airway obstructions. However, its use in clinical settings as a diagnostic tool is limited because oscillometry lacks globally accepted reference values. In this scoping review, we systematically assessed the differences between selected oscillometric reference equations with the hypothesis that significant heterogeneity existed between them. We searched bibliographic databases, registries and references for studies that developed equations for healthy adult populations according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A widely used Caucasian model was used as the standard reference and compared against other models using Bland-Altman and Lin's concordance correlational analyses. We screened 1202 titles and abstracts, and after a full-text review of 67 studies, we included 10 in our analyses. Of these, three models had a low-to-moderate agreement with the reference model, particularly those developed from non-Caucasian populations. Although the other six models had a moderate-to-high agreement with the standard model, there were still significant sex-specific variations. This is the first systematic analysis of the heterogeneity between oscillometric reference models and warrants the validation of appropriate equations in clinical applications of oscillometry to avoid diagnostic errors.

Clinical significance and applications of oscillometry

Recently, “Technical standards for respiratory oscillometry” was published, which reviewed the physiological basis of oscillometric measures and detailed the technical factors related to equipment and test performance, quality assurance and reporting of results. Here we present a review of the clinical significance and applications of oscillometry. We briefly review the physiological principles of oscillometry and the basics of oscillometry interpretation, and then describe what is currently known about oscillometry in its role as a sensitive measure of airway resistance, bronchodilator responsiveness and bronchial challenge testing, and response to medical therapy, particularly in asthma and COPD. The technique may have unique advantages in situations where spirometry and other lung function tests are not suitable, such as in infants, neuromuscular disease, sleep apnoea and critical care. Other potential applications include detection of bronchiolitis obliterans, vocal cord dysfunction and the effects of environmental exposures. However, despite great promise as a useful clinical tool, we identify a number of areas in which more evidence of clinical utility is needed before oscillometry becomes routinely used for diagnosing or monitoring respiratory disease.

This paper provides a current review of the interpretation, clinical significance and application of oscillometry in respiratory medicine, with special emphasis on limitations of evidence and suggestions for future research.https://bit.ly/3GQPViA