The Science Journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care

2002 OPEN FORUM Abstracts

EVALUATION OF THE ACCURACY OF THE SPIROPROª HANDHELD SPIROMETER.

White K RPFT, Kurokawa N RRT and McCarthy K RCPT. Pulmonary Function Laboratory, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44195

Background: We undertook this study to compare the accuracy of the portable Jaeger SpiroPro? differential pressure transducer/pneumotach spirometer with our larger laboratory-based spirometers.

Methods: We obtained a total of twenty sets of spirometry sessions (minimum 3 efforts/session) on both the Jaeger SpiroPro? and the Jaeger Masterscreen PFT/Body?(both instruments from Viasys Healthcare, Yorba Linda, CA) from six normal subjects experienced in performing spirometry tests (five female, one male, ages: 40 to 56). The sequence of instruments used in each session was varied randomly. Repeat sessions were obtained on different days and the instrument order was again varied in a random fashion. Comparisons of the standard spirometry indexes forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), peak expiratory flow rate (PEF) and mid-expiratory flow rate (FEF25-75%) were made. The largest FVC and FEV1 from each instrument-session were compared. The PEF and FEF25-75% from the instrument-session effort that had the best-sum of FVC and FEV1 were compared. Test subjects and those administering the test were not blinded as to which instrument was being used.

Results: Seventeen of twenty (85%) of the largest FVCs and all (100%) of the largest FEV1s from each instrument at each session agreed within 0.2L. The mean results and differences (±SD) for the 20 sets of measurements are shown in the following table. Student?s t-test was used when there was normal distribution of the data, otherwise the Mann-Whitney rank sum test was used to detect statistically significant differences.

Parameter SpiroPro Masterscreen Mean Difference (SD) P value (statistical test)
FVC (L) 3.58 (±0.68) 3.48 (±0.67) 0.10 (±0.14) 0.34 (Mann-Whitney Rank Sum)
FEV1 (L) 2.94 (±0.54) 2.87 (±0.51) 0.07 (±0.08) 0.40 (Mann-Whitney Rank Sum)
PEF (LPS) 8.8 (±1.4) 8.7 (±1.5) 0.1 (±0.3) 0.54 (Mann-Whitney Rank Sum)
FEF25-75% (LPS) 2.61 (±0.58) 2.61 (±0.52) 0.24 (±0.34) 0.17 (Student’s t-test)

Experience: The SpiroPro unit is a very portable spirometer that uses disposable flow sensors. The system can download results to our main PFT database. The user interface is moderately easy to use. During testing, the unit displays a flow-volume curve but it is difficult to determine when the patient has achieved end-of-test criteria, the most common problem in spirometry testing. We recommend a digital display of flow (mL per second) be added to aid in determining when to end the collection.

Conclusions: No statistically or clinically significant difference was found for any parameter we evaluated. This study demonstrated acceptable agreement between the portable hand-held SpiroPro? spirometer and the larger MasterScreen PFT/Body unit, suggesting that results from these units can be used interchangeably. However, because the evaluations were conducted on normal subjects, further evaluation with subjects having low volumes and flows is warranted.

OF-02-038

You are here: RCJournal.com » Past OPEN FORUM Abstracts » 2002 Abstracts » EVALUATION OF THE ACCURACY OF THE SPIROPROª HANDHELD SPIROMETER.