2001 OPEN FORUM Abstracts
THE ?SPIROCARD?SPIROMETER COMPARES FAVORABLY WITH TWO CURRENTLY USED SPIROMETRY SYSTEMS.
Sung-Chul LimMD, Dale Marks RRT, Alexander Adams MPH,RRT. Regions Hospital, St. Paul,MN.
Background: The importanceof accurate spirometry testing has been repeatedly addressed in American ThoracicSociety (ATS) guideline statements. A new category of abbreviated spirometrytesting, office spirometry, has been recommended to facilitate testing of allcigarette smokers over 45 y/o and younger individuals with respiratory symptoms.To meet this public health need, manufacturers have developed an array of portablespirometers. The SpiroCard (QRS diagnostic, Plymouth, MN), a type 2 PCMCIA card,serves as a spirometer that adapts to laptop computers.
Method: We compared indicesof pulmonary function (FVC, FEV1, FEF25-75%, and PEFR) measured by the SpiroCard,a complete pulmonary function test system (Sensormedics, Yorba Linda, California)and a currently used portable unit (Koko, Wrightsville, PA). Seven normal volunteersperformed spirometry testing on each instrument. Testing was performed to meetATS guidelines requiring at least three ?acceptable? efforts. The data was analyzedby ANOVA (super ANOVA, SPSS, Chicago, IL).
Results: Indices of pulmonaryfunction measured by the SpiroCard were not significantly different from theSensormedics or Koko spirometers (Table 1). There were no observable, systematicdifferences between the appearances of expiratory flow waveforms generated bythe three spirometers.
Table 1. Values of pulmonaryfunction indices between the devices (mean±s.d.)
|FVC (L)||FEV1 (L)||FEF25-75%(L/s)||PEFR (L/s)|
|SpiroCard||4.43 ± 1.37||3.71 ± 0.89||4.34 ± 0.72||9.77 ± 1.95|
|Sensormedics||4.51± 1.43||3.75 ± 0.97||4.08 ± 0.51||8.71 ± 2.30|
|Koko||4.75 ± 1.34||3.85 ± 083||4.01 ± 0.57||9.89 ± 1.84|
Conclusions: In normal volunteers,the SpiroCard spirometer produced similar indices and tracings to PFT systemsin current use.