Abstract
BACKGROUND—The American Thoracic Society (ATS) has set the acceptable resistance for spirometers at less than 1.5 cm H2O/l/s over the flow range 0-14 l/s and for monitoring devices at less than 2.5 cm H2O/l/s (0-14 l/s). The aims of this study were to determine the resistance characteristics of commonly used spirometers and monitoring devices and the effect of resistance on ventilatory function. METHODS—The resistance of five spirometers (Vitalograph wedge bellows, Morgan rolling seal, Stead Wells water sealed, Fleisch pneumotachograph, Lilly pneumotachograph) and three monitoring devices (Spiro 1,Ferraris, mini-Wright) was measured from the back pressure developed over a range of known flows (1.6-13.1 l/s). Peak expiratory flow (PEF), forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and mid forced expiratory flow (FEF25-75%) were measured on six subjects with normal lung function and 13subjects with respiratory disorders using a pneumotachograph. Ventilatory function was then repeated with four different sized resistors (approximately 1-11 cmH2O/l/s) inserted between the mouthpiece and pneumotachograph. RESULTS—All five diagnostic spirometers and two of the three monitoring devices passed the ATS upper limit for resistance. PEF, FEV1 and FVC showed significant (p<0.05) inverse correlations with added resistance with no significant difference between the normal and patient groups. At a resistance of 1.5 cm H2O/l/s the mean percentage falls (95% confidence interval) were: PEF 6.9% (5.4to 8.3); FEV1 1.9% (1.0 to 2.8), and FVC 1.5% (0.8 to 2.3). CONCLUSIONS—The ATS resistance specification for diagnostic spirometers appears to be appropriate. However, the specification for monitoring devices may be too conservative. PEF was found to be the most sensitive index to added resistance.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (128.1 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- GAENSLER E. A. Analysis of the ventilatory defect by timed capacity measurements. Am Rev Tuberc. 1951 Sep;64(3):256–278. doi: 10.1164/art.1951.64.3.256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Johns D. P., Ingram C., Booth H., Williams T. J., Walters E. H. Effect of a microaerosol barrier filter on the measurement of lung function. Chest. 1995 Apr;107(4):1045–1048. doi: 10.1378/chest.107.4.1045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- KORY R. C., HAMILTON L. H. Evaluation of spirometers used in pulmonary function studies. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1963 Feb;87:228–238. doi: 10.1164/arrd.1963.87.2.228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Robertson D. R., Swinburn C. R., Stone T. N., Gibson G. J. Effects of an external resistance on maximum flow in chronic obstructive lung disease: implications for recognition of coincident upper airway obstruction. Thorax. 1989 Jun;44(6):461–468. doi: 10.1136/thx.44.6.461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- SHEPHARD R. J. Some observations on peak expiratory flow. Thorax. 1962 Mar;17:39–48. doi: 10.1136/thx.17.1.39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]