Expiratory flow limitation detected by forced oscillation and negative expiratory pressure

98Citations
Citations of this article
66Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The within-breath change in reactance (ΔX̄rs) measured by forced oscillation technique (FOT) at 5 Hz reliably detects expiratory flow limitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The present study compared this approach to the standard negative expiratory pressure (NEP) method. In total, 21 COPD patients were studied by applying both techniques to the same breath and in 15 patients the measurements were repeated after bronchodilator. For each patient and condition five NEP tests were performed and independently scored by three operators unaware of the FOT results. In 180 tests, FOT classified 53.3% as flow limited. On average, the operators scored 27.6% of tests flow limited and 47.6% non-flow limited, but could not score 24.8%. The methods disagreed in 7.9% of cases; in 78% of these the NEP scores differed between operators. Bronchodilation reduced NEP and ΔX̄rs scores, with only the latter achieving significance. Averaging the operators' NEP scores, a threshold between 24.6-30.8% of tidal volume being flow limited by NEP produced 94% agreement between methods. In conclusion, when negative expiratory pressure and forced oscillation technique were both available they showed good agreement. As forced oscillation technique is automatic and can measure multiple breaths over long periods, it is suitable for monitoring expiratory flow limitation continuously and identifying patients' breathing close to the onset of expiratory flow limitation, where intermittent sampling may be unrepresentative. Copyright © ERS Journals Ltd 2007.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dellacà, R. L., Duffy, N., Pompilio, P. P., Aliverti, A., Koulouris, N. G., Pedotti, A., & Calverley, P. M. A. (2007). Expiratory flow limitation detected by forced oscillation and negative expiratory pressure. European Respiratory Journal, 29(2), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00038006

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free