Search

Rationale: American Thoracic Society guidelines state that a 10% or greater intersession change in diffusing capacity of the lung (DL(CO)) should be considered clinically significant. However, little is known about the short-term intersession variability in DL(CO) in untrained subjects or how variability is affected by rigorous external quality control., Objectives: To characterize the intersession variability of DL(CO) and the effect of different quality control methods in untrained individuals without significant lung disease., Methods: Data were pooled from the comparator arms of 14 preregistration trials of inhaled insulin that included nonsmoking diabetic patients without significant lung disease. A total of 699 participants performed repeated DL(CO) measurements using a highly standardized technique. A total of 948 participants performed repeated measurements using routine clinical testing., Measurements and Main Results: The mean intersession absolute change in DL(CO) using the highly standardized method was 1.45 ml/minute/mm Hg (5.64%) compared with 2.49 ml/minute/mm Hg (9.52%) in the routine testing group (P < 0.0001 for both absolute and percent difference). The variability in absolute intersession change in DL(CO) increased with increasing baseline DL(CO) values, whereas the absolute percentage of intersession change was stable across baseline values. Depending on the method, 15.5 to 35.5% of participants had an intersession change of 10% or greater. A 20% or greater threshold would reduce this percentage of patients to 1 to 10%., Conclusions: Intersession variability in DL(CO) measurement is dependent on the method of testing used and baseline DL(CO). Using a more liberal threshold to define meaningful intersession change may reduce the misclassification of normal variation as abnormal change.

Background: The objective of the study was to characterize the biological and technical components of variability associated with longitudinal measurements of FEV(1) and carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (Dlco). Variability was apportioned to subject and instrument for five commercially available pulmonary function testing (PFT) systems: Collins CPL (Ferraris Respiratory; Louisville, CO); Morgan Transflow Test PFT System (Morgan Scientific; Haverhill, MA); SensorMedics Vmax 22D (VIASYS Healthcare; Yorba Linda, CA); Jaeger USA Masterscreen Diffusion TP (VIASYS Healthcare; Yorba Linda, CA); and Medical Graphics Profiler DX System (Medical Graphics Corporation; St. Paul, MN)., Methods: This was a randomized, replicated cross-over, single-center methodology study in 11 healthy subjects aged 20 to 65 years. Spirometry and Dlco measurements were performed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Repetitive simulations of FEV(1) and Dlco were performed on the same instruments on four occasions over a 90-day period using a spirometry waveform generator and a Dlco simulator., Results: The coefficient of variation associated with repetitive measurements of FEV(1) or Dlco in subjects was consistently larger than that associated with repetitive simulated waveforms across the five instruments. Instrumentation accounted for 13 to 58% of the total FEV(1) and 36 to 70% of the total Dlco variability observed in subjects. Sample size estimates of hypothetical studies designed to detect treatment group differences of 0.050 L in FEV(1) and 0.5 mL/min/mm Hg in Dlco varied as much as four times depending on the instrument utilized., Conclusions: These results provide a semiquantitative assessment of the biological and technical components of PFT variability in a highly standardized setting. They illustrate how instrument choice and test variability can impact sample size determinations in clinical studies that use FEV(1) and Dlco as end points.

Background: The objective of the study was to quantify the accuracy and reproducibility of five commercially available pulmonary function test (PFT) instruments (Collins CPL [Ferraris Respiratory; Louisville, CO]; Morgan Transflow Test PFT System [Morgan Scientific; Haverhill, MA]; SensorMedics Vmax 22D [VIASYS Healthcare; Yorba Linda, CA]; Jaeger USA Masterscreen Diffusion TP [VIASYS Healthcare]; and Medical Graphics Profiler DX System [Medical Graphics Corp; St. Paul, MN]) that are associated with spirometry and the measurement of pulmonary diffusing capacity., Methods: In a multifactor, single-center, repeated-measures, full factorial 90-day study, a pulmonary waveform generator and a single-breath simulator of diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (Dlco) were used to perform simulations of FVC and Dlco maneuvers. Accuracy was assessed as the difference between the observed and simulated values. Reproducibility was determined as the coefficient of variation of all measurements made during the study., Results: All instruments demonstrated a high degree of accuracy in the measurement of FVC and FEV(1). Overall, the accuracies associated with the measurement of peak flow, forced expiratory flow, mid-expiratory phase, and diffusing capacity were generally lower and more variable among the instruments tested. The coefficients of variation of Dlco measurements over 90 days were higher than those observed for spirometry., Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of assessing the accuracy and reproducibility of modern PFT instruments using simulation testing. Our results provide an assessment of the component of PFT accuracy and reproducibility that is due to instrumentation alone.

Pulmonary function tests are most useful when performed with good technique and with an accurate system. Using standard techniques in performing the tests minimizes diagnostic and therapeutic errors. This report discusses the rationale and limits of standardization and offers practical suggestions for using available standards to increase confidence in test results.

The carbon monoxide diffusing capacity test (D(LCO)) is a commonly performed pulmonary function test that requires technical expertise and attention to detail to get acceptable results. With the advent of automated devices and powerful computer programs, D(LCO) measurement has rapidly gained wide clinical acceptance. But there are many subtle aspects to performing the test that can diminish its accuracy and repeatability. The clinician must ensure: that the D(LCO) instrument is correctly calibrated; that inhalation is least 90% of the largest previously measured vital capacity; that the patient executes a quick, smooth inhalation within 2 seconds; that the breath-hold is 9-11 seconds; that the breath-hold is without straining (no Valsalva or Müller maneuvers); that exhalation is quick and smooth; that a representative gas sample is obtained from the correct portion of the exhalation; and that at least 5 minutes elapse between D(LCO) tests. At least 2 but no more than 5 D(LCO) tests should be conducted, and testing is complete when 2 tests are within 10% or 3 D(LCO) units (mL CO/min/mm Hg) of each other. The reported D(LCO) value is the average of the first 2 tests that meet the reproducibility criteria, but if 5 tests are performed and no 2 meet the reproducibility criteria, the reported value is the average of the 2 tests with the highest inspiratory volumes. These quality controls will help laboratories achieve consistent high D(LCO) accuracy.