Comparison of Pneumotachometer and Portable Digital Turbine Spirometry for Field-Based Assessment: An Air Quality, Environment, and Respiratory Outcomes in Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia Study.
Comparison of Pneumotachometer and Portable Digital Turbine Spirometry for Field-Based Assessment: An Air Quality, Environment, and Respiratory Outcomes in Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia Study.
复制标题
用于现场评估的呼吸速度计和便携式数字涡轮肺量计的比较：支气管肺发育不良研究中的空气质量、环境和呼吸结果。
DOI：
10.1089/ped.2023.0046
复制
发表时间：
2023
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Gaffin,JonathanM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mukharesh,Lana;Ryan,Morgan;Hayden,LystraP;Dahlberg,SuzanneE;Gaffin,JonathanM
引言：在儿科人群中使用远程肺量计的数据有限。我们试图评估数字式涡轮机肺活量计，Medical International Research（MIR）Spirobank Smart（MIR，New柏林，WI，美国）与呼吸速度描记法肺活量计，Pneumotrac（Vitalograph Inc.，莱内克萨，KS，USA），在基于现场的临床研究。方法：这是一个横断面研究的一个亚组的学龄参与者参加了空气质量，环境，呼吸结果支气管肺发育不良（BPD）的研究，谁进行了同一天配对教练基线肺功能测定测量从Pneumotrac和MIR设备。估计每种器械的成功测试比例，并使用McNemar检验进行比较。设备之间的相关性进行了分析，用力呼气容积在1秒（FEV 1）和用力肺活量（FVC）的Lin的一致性相关性，和Bland-Altman plots generated.Results：21名参与者与BPD的历史完成了两个设备上的家庭肺功能测定演习。参与者的平均年龄为8.7岁。平均FEV 1和FVC测量值分别为81%预测值和90.4%预测值。使用Pneumotrac（81%）的可接受检测比例似乎高于使用MIR（67%），尽管没有不一致的证据（P= 0.317）。在两种器械测试成功的受试者中，Lin的一致性相关性显示出中度一致性（FEV 1 r = 0.955，95%置信区间[CI]：0.87-0.98; FVCr= 0.971，CI：0.91-0.99）。Pneumotrac和MIR之间FEV 1的平均差异为0.079 L（95%一致性限值为−0.141至0.298 L），FVC为0.075 L（95%一致性限值为−0.171至0.322 L）。这些都是相对较小的，没有证据表明系统或体积依赖性的bias.Conclusions：利用涡轮机肺量计可能是一个有前途的和可行的方式来进行肺功能测试的实地研究在儿童。
Introduction:Data on the use of remote spirometry are limited in the pediatric population. We sought to assess the feasibility and accuracy of a digital turbine spirometer, Medical International Research (MIR) Spirobank Smart (MIR, New Berlin, WI, USA), compared with a pneumotachography spirometer, Pneumotrac (Vitalograph Inc., Lenexa, KS, USA), in field-based clinical research.Methods:This is a cross-sectional study of a subgroup of school-aged participants enrolled in the Air quality, Environment, and Respiratory Outcomes in Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia (BPD) study, who performed same-day paired coached baseline spirometry measurements from the Pneumotrac and MIR devices. Proportion of successful tests was estimated for each device and compared using McNemar's test. Correlation between devices forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) was analyzed by Lin's concordance correlation, and Bland–Altman plots were generated.Results:Twenty-one participants with history of BPD completed home spirometry maneuvers on both devices. The mean age of participants was 8.7 years. The mean FEV1and FVC measurement was 81% predicted and 90.4% predicted, respectively. The proportion of acceptable tests appeared higher using Pneumotrac (81%) than when using MIR (67%), although without evidence of discordance (P= 0.317). Among subjects with successful tests on both devices, Lin's concordance correlation demonstrated moderate agreement (FEV1r= 0.955, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87–0.98; FVCr= 0.971, CI: 0.91–0.99). The mean difference in FEV1between Pneumotrac and MIR was 0.079 L (95% limits of agreement were −0.141 to 0.298 L) and FVC was 0.075 L (95% limits of agreement were −0.171 to 0.322 L). These were relatively small and without evidence of systematic or volume-dependent bias.Conclusions:Utilizing turbine spirometers may be a promising and feasible way to perform pulmonary function testing for field research in children.