• Saiprakash B Venkateshiah, Octavian C Ioachimescu, Kevin McCarthy, and James K Stoller.
• Department of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Creighton University, 601 North 30th Street, Suite 3820, Omaha, Nebraska 68131, USA. saiprakashv@creighton.edu
• Lung. 2008 Jan 1;186(1):19-25.

AbstractThe aim of this retrospective study was to determine the utility of the spirometric measurements FVC, FEV1, and FEV1/FVC in diagnosing pulmonary restriction. Spirometry and lung volume measurements performed on the same patient visit were analyzed. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of (1) FVCor=LLN were compared to diagnose restriction based on lung volume measurements. In all, 18,282 pulmonary function tests from 8,315 patients were analyzed. Twenty-six percent of the patients (n=2,213) had restriction based on lung volume measurements. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of FVCor=normal to diagnose restriction based on lung volume criteria were 72.4%, 87.1%, 64.4%, and 90.7%, respectively. Analysis of ROC curves showed that spirometric criteria based on FVC alone performed better (area under the curve=0.817) than those based on the combined criteria of FVC and FEV1/FVC (area under the curve=0.584). Consistent with earlier findings, the negative predictive value for a normal FVC (>or=LLN) to exclude pulmonary restriction was high in this series (up to 95.7%). Also, a spirometric diagnosis of "restriction" (FVCor=LLN) had a positive predictive value of 26.3-73.9%. On this basis, normal FVC can be regarded as excluding restriction with high reliability.

17 keywords...

hide…