0
Abstract: Slide Presentations |

COMPARISON OF PEAK EXPIRATORY FLOW TO PULMONARY FUNCTION TESTS IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS FREE TO VIEW

Edith P. Allen, MD*; Maria Martinez, MD; Roxann Wallace, RTT; Lilia Parra-Roide, MD; Barbara Stewart, MD
Author and Funding Information

St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ



Chest. 2006;130(4_MeetingAbstracts):137S-c-138S. doi:10.1378/chest.130.4_MeetingAbstracts.137S-c
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Abstract

PURPOSE: Pediatric lung disease is often diagnosed and monitored by a simple, easy test that can be done in the primary pediatrician's office or at home in addition to, at times, history and physical alone. In order to validate the use of peak expiratory flow (PEF), our study compares PEF with pulmonary function testing (PFT) in children with airway disease.

METHODS: This is a retrospective validation study. All PFT performed between June 2004 and February 2006 on patients between 4 and 18 years of age were collected from our hospital's pulmonary laboratory database and our pulmonology clinic. PEF values were measured as an integral part of the PFT report. All studies were interpreted by three pediatric pulmonologist. The PFT were categorized as normal, obstructive, restrictive and mixed pattern based not only on numbers, but also on the shape of the flow-volume curve. The PFT with an obstructive component were subsequently subdivided in two groups, according to the forced expiratory volume in 1-second (FEV1) predicted percentage value (>=80% and <80%). Validity statistics assessing the ability of PEF to identify obstructive lung process were calculated. Normal PFT were used as controls.

RESULTS: 329 tests were obtained, 140 were from the hospital's database and 189 from the pulmonology clinic. Subjects' mean age was 9.6 (range 4-18). Among the 329 tests, 155 were reported as normal, 85 obstructive, 47 restrictive and 42 mixed. PEF sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated. These statistics for PEF validated with PFT (FEV1>=80%) are: 29,19,12,41,0.37 and 3.64 respectively. For PEF validated with PFT (FEV1<80%) are: 70,80,36,94,3.66 and 0.36 respectively.

CONCLUSION: PEF correlated poorly with PFT. PEF appears to be an unreliable tool when used to evaluate and manage patients with pulmonary disease.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: While the majority of children are seen by their primary physician and managed exclusively using history, physical and simple tools such as PEF, the validity and reliability of this test must be considered prior to its use.

DISCLOSURE: Edith Allen, None.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

2:30 PM - 4:00 PM


Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543