Prediction of exercise respiratory limitation from pulmonary function tests

IF 10.4 2区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
{"title":"Prediction of exercise respiratory limitation from pulmonary function tests","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.pulmoe.2022.12.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Evaluation of unexplained exercise intolerance is best resolved by cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) which enables the determination of the exercise limiting system in most cases. Traditionally, pulmonary function tests (PFTs) at rest are not used for the prediction of a respiratory limitation on CPET.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>We sought cut-off values on PFTs that might, <em>a priori</em>, rule-in or rule-out a respiratory limitation in CPET.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Patients who underwent CPET in our institute were divided into two groups according to spirometry: obstructive and non-obstructive. Each group was randomly divided 2:1 into derivation and validation cohorts respectively. We analyzed selected PFTs parameters in the derivation groups in order to establish maximal and minimal cut-off values for which a respiratory limitation could be ruled-in or ruled-out. We then validated these values in the validation cohorts.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 593 patients who underwent a CPET, 126 were in the obstructive and 467 in the non-obstructive group. In patients with obstructive lung disease, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV<sub>1</sub>) ≥ 61% predicted could rule out a respiratory limitation, while FEV<sub>1</sub> ≤ 33% predicted was always associated with a respiratory limitation. For patients with non-obstructive spirometry, FEV<sub>1</sub> of ≥ 73% predicted could rule-out a respiratory limitation. Application of this algorithm might have saved up to 47% and 71% of CPETs in our obstructive and non-obstructive groups, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Presence or absence of a respiratory limitation on CPET can be predicted in some cases based on a PFTs performed at rest.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54237,"journal":{"name":"Pulmonology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2531043723000016/pdfft?md5=1ff4d9adf371592749df33b9cd7b6948&pid=1-s2.0-S2531043723000016-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pulmonology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2531043723000016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Evaluation of unexplained exercise intolerance is best resolved by cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) which enables the determination of the exercise limiting system in most cases. Traditionally, pulmonary function tests (PFTs) at rest are not used for the prediction of a respiratory limitation on CPET.

Objective

We sought cut-off values on PFTs that might, a priori, rule-in or rule-out a respiratory limitation in CPET.

Methods

Patients who underwent CPET in our institute were divided into two groups according to spirometry: obstructive and non-obstructive. Each group was randomly divided 2:1 into derivation and validation cohorts respectively. We analyzed selected PFTs parameters in the derivation groups in order to establish maximal and minimal cut-off values for which a respiratory limitation could be ruled-in or ruled-out. We then validated these values in the validation cohorts.

Results

Of 593 patients who underwent a CPET, 126 were in the obstructive and 467 in the non-obstructive group. In patients with obstructive lung disease, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≥ 61% predicted could rule out a respiratory limitation, while FEV1 ≤ 33% predicted was always associated with a respiratory limitation. For patients with non-obstructive spirometry, FEV1 of ≥ 73% predicted could rule-out a respiratory limitation. Application of this algorithm might have saved up to 47% and 71% of CPETs in our obstructive and non-obstructive groups, respectively.

Conclusion

Presence or absence of a respiratory limitation on CPET can be predicted in some cases based on a PFTs performed at rest.

通过肺功能测试预测运动呼吸受限。
背景:对不明原因的运动不耐受的评估最好通过心肺运动测试(CPET)来解决,在大多数情况下,心肺运动测试可确定运动受限系统。传统上,静息状态下的肺功能测试(PFT)并不用于预测 CPET 的呼吸限制:目的:我们寻找可以预先判断或排除 CPET 呼吸受限的 PFT 临界值:在我院接受 CPET 的患者根据肺活量分为两组:阻塞性和非阻塞性。每组按 2:1 的比例随机分为推导组和验证组。我们分析了推导组的部分 PFTs 参数,以确定可排除或排除呼吸受限的最大和最小临界值。然后,我们在验证组中对这些数值进行了验证:在接受 CPET 的 593 名患者中,阻塞性肺病组有 126 人,非阻塞性肺病组有 467 人。在阻塞性肺病患者中,1 秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)≥ 61% 预测值可排除呼吸受限,而 FEV1 ≤ 33% 预测值总是与呼吸受限有关。对于肺活量无阻塞的患者,FEV1 ≥ 73% 预测值可排除呼吸受限。在我们的阻塞性和非阻塞性组别中,应用这种算法可分别节省多达 47% 和 71% 的 CPET:结论:在某些情况下,根据静息状态下的 PFT 可以预测 CPET 是否存在呼吸受限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pulmonology
Pulmonology Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
14.30
自引率
5.10%
发文量
159
审稿时长
19 days
期刊介绍: Pulmonology (previously Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia) is the official journal of the Portuguese Society of Pulmonology (Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia/SPP). The journal publishes 6 issues per year and focuses on respiratory system diseases in adults and clinical research. It accepts various types of articles including peer-reviewed original articles, review articles, editorials, and opinion articles. The journal is published in English and is freely accessible through its website, as well as Medline and other databases. It is indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded, Journal of Citation Reports, Index Medicus/MEDLINE, Scopus, and EMBASE/Excerpta Medica.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信