Background: Routine lung function testing requires expensive equipment, or requires maximum expiratory effort. The airflow perturbation device (APD) is a light handheld device, allowing for serial measures of respirat...Background: Routine lung function testing requires expensive equipment, or requires maximum expiratory effort. The airflow perturbation device (APD) is a light handheld device, allowing for serial measures of respiratory resistance noninvasively and effortlessly. Methods: In a convenience sample of 398 patients undergoing pulmonary function testing, we compared routine spirometric indices (forced expired volume in 1 second (FEV1), peak expiratory flow (PEF)), and airways resistance (Raw-272 patients), to measures of respiratory resistance measured with the APD including inspiratory (IR), expiratory (ER) and averaged (AR) resistance. Results: Measures of lung function were significantly correlated (p 0.001). On regression analysis, between 7% - 17% of the variance (R2) for FEV1, PEF, and Raw was explained by APD measurements. Approximately 2/3 of the variance in FEV1 was explained by PEF measurements. Conclusions: APD measurements of lung function correlate with conventional measures. Future studies should be directed at exploring the use of the APD device in serial measures of lung function in patients with lung disease.展开更多
文摘Background: Routine lung function testing requires expensive equipment, or requires maximum expiratory effort. The airflow perturbation device (APD) is a light handheld device, allowing for serial measures of respiratory resistance noninvasively and effortlessly. Methods: In a convenience sample of 398 patients undergoing pulmonary function testing, we compared routine spirometric indices (forced expired volume in 1 second (FEV1), peak expiratory flow (PEF)), and airways resistance (Raw-272 patients), to measures of respiratory resistance measured with the APD including inspiratory (IR), expiratory (ER) and averaged (AR) resistance. Results: Measures of lung function were significantly correlated (p 0.001). On regression analysis, between 7% - 17% of the variance (R2) for FEV1, PEF, and Raw was explained by APD measurements. Approximately 2/3 of the variance in FEV1 was explained by PEF measurements. Conclusions: APD measurements of lung function correlate with conventional measures. Future studies should be directed at exploring the use of the APD device in serial measures of lung function in patients with lung disease.
