Occupational and Environmental Lung Diseases |

A Handheld Device Comparable to Impulse Oscillometry for Measurement of Respiratory Resistance FREE TO VIEW

Donovan Mabe; Michael Perkins; Robert Walter; Robert McFaddin; Spencer Donerson; Angela Dietsch, PhD; Nancy Pearl-Solomon, PhD; Arthur Johnson, PhD; Jafar Vossoughi, PhD; Aaron Holley
Author and Funding Information

Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Gaithersburg, MD

Chest. 2014;146(4_MeetingAbstracts):682A. doi:10.1378/chest.1994952
Text Size: A A A
Published online


SESSION TITLE: Occupational/Environmental Lung Disease Posters

SESSION TYPE: Original Investigation Poster

PRESENTED ON: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 01:30 PM - 02:30 PM

PURPOSE: The airflow pertubation device (APD) is a handheld unit that provides measurements for respiratory resistance. Preliminary laboratory data using a test lung with artificial loads added show that the values provided by the APD are accurate. Our goal was to compare APD values for resistance to those obtained using iOS in a group of patients presenting to our pulmonary clinic.

METHODS: Patients scheduled for impulse oscillometry at our pulmonary clinic were recruited for this study. Those who agreed to participate were asked to perform three breathing trials of one minute each using the APD. Resistance values were recorded and compared using Pearson’s correlation coefficient and the Bland-Altman method.

RESULTS: There were 14 patients who had data available for analysis. Mean values for R5, R20 and R5 - R20 using iOS were 3.76 ± 1.2, 3.35 ± 1.1 and 10.8 ± 6.6 cmH20/L/s respectively. Mean values for inspiratory (iAPD) and expiratory (eAPD) resistance using the APD were 3.1 ± 0.8 and 3.6 ± 1.0 respectively. iAPD was significantly correlated with R5 (r = 0.78, p = 0.001) and R20 (r = 0.80, p=0.001), as was eAPD (R5: r = 0.79, p = 0.001; R20: r = 0.81, p < 0.001). iAPD under-estimated R5 (mean difference = -0.96 ± 0.9, 95% limit of agreement: -2.8 to 0.84) and R20 (mean difference = - 0.6 ± 0.8, 95% limit of agreement: -2.18 to 0.98), as did eAPD (R5: - 0.55 ± 0.50, 95% limit of agreement: - 1.5 to 0.45; R20: - 1.05 to 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS: The APD provides resistance values with good-to-excellent correlation to iOS with a slight bias toward underestimation of resistance.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The APD provides rapid, effort-independent values for resistance that are comparable to an established method (iOS). It is small and portable and could easily be used for onsite testing at different locations.

DISCLOSURE: Arthur Johnson: Other: Patent holder airway perturbation device (donated devices, no role in study design or data analysis) Jafar Vossoughi: Other: Patent holder airway perturbation device (donated devices, no role in study design or data analysis) The following authors have nothing to disclose: Donovan Mabe, Michael Perkins, Robert Walter, Robert McFaddin, Spencer Donerson, Angela Dietsch, Nancy Pearl-Solomon, Aaron Holley

No Product/Research Disclosure Information




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.

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