Performance comparison of the hand-held microplus portable spirometer and the sensormedics Vmax22 diagnostic spirometer

William E. Caras, Michael G. Winter, Thomas A Dillard, Tammy Reasor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Portable spirometry offers many potential advantages over conventional lung function measurements obtained in a pulmonary function laboratory. METHODS: We compared the performance characteristics of the MicroPlus portable spirometer with the SensorMedics Vmax22 diagnostic spirometer used in our pulmonary function laboratory. Lung function measurements (forced expiratory volume [FVC], forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV1], and peak expiratory flow [PEF]) were obtained from both instruments simultaneously, during the same forced expiratory maneuver. The study group consisted of 20 normal subjects, 20 asthmatics with mildly reduced lung function, and 20 severely obstructed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. RESULTS: The difference between instruments (SensorMedics minus MicroPlus) was statistically significant for FVC in all 3 groups (0.31 L ± 0.57 in favor of the SensorMedics) and was also significant for FEV1 (0.09 L ± 0.39) and PEF (0.33L/s ± 0.77) in the asthma and COPD groups. Between-group comparison of bias was highly significant (p = 0.0001) for PEF when comparing normal subjects with both obstructive lung disease groups. We also conducted a bench study in which we compared lung function from 3 additional MicroPlus units with the SensorMedics, measuring FVC from a 3-L syringe at several flow rates. A tendency to underestimate lung function, particularly at low expiratory flows, was noted in all 4 MicroPlus units tested. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the MicroPlus underestimates lung function and, thus, the results obtained with the MicroPlus and the desktop SensorMedics Vmax22 diagnostic spirometer should not be considered equivalent or interchangeable.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1465-1473
Number of pages9
JournalRespiratory Care
Volume44
Issue number12
StatePublished - Dec 1 1999

Fingerprint

Hand
Lung
Forced Expiratory Volume
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Obstructive Lung Diseases
Spirometry
Syringes
Asthma

Keywords

  • Hand-held spirometer
  • MicroPlus
  • Portable spirometer
  • SensorMedics
  • Spirometry
  • Turbine-driven spirometer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Performance comparison of the hand-held microplus portable spirometer and the sensormedics Vmax22 diagnostic spirometer. / Caras, William E.; Winter, Michael G.; Dillard, Thomas A; Reasor, Tammy.

In: Respiratory Care, Vol. 44, No. 12, 01.12.1999, p. 1465-1473.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Caras, WE, Winter, MG, Dillard, TA & Reasor, T 1999, 'Performance comparison of the hand-held microplus portable spirometer and the sensormedics Vmax22 diagnostic spirometer', Respiratory Care, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 1465-1473.
Caras, William E. ; Winter, Michael G. ; Dillard, Thomas A ; Reasor, Tammy. / Performance comparison of the hand-held microplus portable spirometer and the sensormedics Vmax22 diagnostic spirometer. In: Respiratory Care. 1999 ; Vol. 44, No. 12. pp. 1465-1473.
@article{95f11a7994934e3a909ccea527dba9ad,
title = "Performance comparison of the hand-held microplus portable spirometer and the sensormedics Vmax22 diagnostic spirometer",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Portable spirometry offers many potential advantages over conventional lung function measurements obtained in a pulmonary function laboratory. METHODS: We compared the performance characteristics of the MicroPlus portable spirometer with the SensorMedics Vmax22 diagnostic spirometer used in our pulmonary function laboratory. Lung function measurements (forced expiratory volume [FVC], forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV1], and peak expiratory flow [PEF]) were obtained from both instruments simultaneously, during the same forced expiratory maneuver. The study group consisted of 20 normal subjects, 20 asthmatics with mildly reduced lung function, and 20 severely obstructed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. RESULTS: The difference between instruments (SensorMedics minus MicroPlus) was statistically significant for FVC in all 3 groups (0.31 L ± 0.57 in favor of the SensorMedics) and was also significant for FEV1 (0.09 L ± 0.39) and PEF (0.33L/s ± 0.77) in the asthma and COPD groups. Between-group comparison of bias was highly significant (p = 0.0001) for PEF when comparing normal subjects with both obstructive lung disease groups. We also conducted a bench study in which we compared lung function from 3 additional MicroPlus units with the SensorMedics, measuring FVC from a 3-L syringe at several flow rates. A tendency to underestimate lung function, particularly at low expiratory flows, was noted in all 4 MicroPlus units tested. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the MicroPlus underestimates lung function and, thus, the results obtained with the MicroPlus and the desktop SensorMedics Vmax22 diagnostic spirometer should not be considered equivalent or interchangeable.",
keywords = "Hand-held spirometer, MicroPlus, Portable spirometer, SensorMedics, Spirometry, Turbine-driven spirometer",
author = "Caras, {William E.} and Winter, {Michael G.} and Dillard, {Thomas A} and Tammy Reasor",
year = "1999",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "1465--1473",
journal = "Respiratory Care",
issn = "0020-1324",
publisher = "Daedalus Enterprises Inc.",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Performance comparison of the hand-held microplus portable spirometer and the sensormedics Vmax22 diagnostic spirometer

AU - Caras, William E.

AU - Winter, Michael G.

AU - Dillard, Thomas A

AU - Reasor, Tammy

PY - 1999/12/1

Y1 - 1999/12/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Portable spirometry offers many potential advantages over conventional lung function measurements obtained in a pulmonary function laboratory. METHODS: We compared the performance characteristics of the MicroPlus portable spirometer with the SensorMedics Vmax22 diagnostic spirometer used in our pulmonary function laboratory. Lung function measurements (forced expiratory volume [FVC], forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV1], and peak expiratory flow [PEF]) were obtained from both instruments simultaneously, during the same forced expiratory maneuver. The study group consisted of 20 normal subjects, 20 asthmatics with mildly reduced lung function, and 20 severely obstructed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. RESULTS: The difference between instruments (SensorMedics minus MicroPlus) was statistically significant for FVC in all 3 groups (0.31 L ± 0.57 in favor of the SensorMedics) and was also significant for FEV1 (0.09 L ± 0.39) and PEF (0.33L/s ± 0.77) in the asthma and COPD groups. Between-group comparison of bias was highly significant (p = 0.0001) for PEF when comparing normal subjects with both obstructive lung disease groups. We also conducted a bench study in which we compared lung function from 3 additional MicroPlus units with the SensorMedics, measuring FVC from a 3-L syringe at several flow rates. A tendency to underestimate lung function, particularly at low expiratory flows, was noted in all 4 MicroPlus units tested. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the MicroPlus underestimates lung function and, thus, the results obtained with the MicroPlus and the desktop SensorMedics Vmax22 diagnostic spirometer should not be considered equivalent or interchangeable.

AB - BACKGROUND: Portable spirometry offers many potential advantages over conventional lung function measurements obtained in a pulmonary function laboratory. METHODS: We compared the performance characteristics of the MicroPlus portable spirometer with the SensorMedics Vmax22 diagnostic spirometer used in our pulmonary function laboratory. Lung function measurements (forced expiratory volume [FVC], forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV1], and peak expiratory flow [PEF]) were obtained from both instruments simultaneously, during the same forced expiratory maneuver. The study group consisted of 20 normal subjects, 20 asthmatics with mildly reduced lung function, and 20 severely obstructed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. RESULTS: The difference between instruments (SensorMedics minus MicroPlus) was statistically significant for FVC in all 3 groups (0.31 L ± 0.57 in favor of the SensorMedics) and was also significant for FEV1 (0.09 L ± 0.39) and PEF (0.33L/s ± 0.77) in the asthma and COPD groups. Between-group comparison of bias was highly significant (p = 0.0001) for PEF when comparing normal subjects with both obstructive lung disease groups. We also conducted a bench study in which we compared lung function from 3 additional MicroPlus units with the SensorMedics, measuring FVC from a 3-L syringe at several flow rates. A tendency to underestimate lung function, particularly at low expiratory flows, was noted in all 4 MicroPlus units tested. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the MicroPlus underestimates lung function and, thus, the results obtained with the MicroPlus and the desktop SensorMedics Vmax22 diagnostic spirometer should not be considered equivalent or interchangeable.

KW - Hand-held spirometer

KW - MicroPlus

KW - Portable spirometer

KW - SensorMedics

KW - Spirometry

KW - Turbine-driven spirometer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=6744248655&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=6744248655&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 1465

EP - 1473

JO - Respiratory Care

JF - Respiratory Care

SN - 0020-1324

IS - 12

ER -