Pulmonary Physiology |

Metrological Aspects of Peak Expiratory Flow-Meters After Prolonged Use FREE TO VIEW

Paraschiva Postolache, MD; Octavian Petrescu, MD; Floarea Mimi Nitu, MD; Roxana Maria Nemes, MD
Author and Funding Information

"Grigore T. Popa" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Iasi, Romania

Chest. 2015;148(4_MeetingAbstracts):905A. doi:10.1378/chest.2219194
Text Size: A A A
Published online


SESSION TITLE: Pulmonary Physiology Posters

SESSION TYPE: Original Investigation Poster

PRESENTED ON: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 01:30 PM - 02:30 PM

PURPOSE: There is scant information about the accuracy and reproducibility of the readings after prolonged use of mechanical peak expiratory flow-meters (PEF-meters) for monitoring of large airway function, both for clinical research purposes and routine management of asthma. The aim of this study was to test the reliability of peak expiratory flow (PEF) values measured with PEF-meters that have been used a prolonged period (two devices of five different types) using a clinical calibration procedure.

METHODS: Five types of adult PEF-meters were tested before (new devices) and after a period of use of several years: Assess-Healthscan (8 years), Mini-Wright-Clement Clarke (7 years), Vitalograph-Vitalograph (5 years), PocketPeak-Ferraris (3 years) and Truzone-Monaghan (2 years). Comparisons with values from a Lily pneumotachograph (PT) (Pneumoscreen - E. Jaeger, Germany) were performed. In the first series of comparisons every PEF-meter was connected downstream in series with the PT and the same subject performed 40 partial to maximal forced expiratory maneuvers (MFEM), during a period of 160 minutes. In the second series of comparisons 30 adult patients performed randomized MFEM on each PEF-meter and on the PT, during a period of 30 minutes.

RESULTS: ANOVA analysis revealed some differences in the accuracy of the different PEF-meters before and after a prolonged using period: the closest agreements to the PT before were Truzone and Mini-Wright, and after Assess and Mini-Wright. The best reproducibility for the before and after using period values was obtained in Assess and PocketPeak.

CONCLUSIONS: The period for using of PEF-meters in a good conditions is much longer than that usually accepted and the replacement of PEF-meters should be restricted to cases of physical damage or obvious malfunction. Our results don't involve in any way the brand name of PEF-meters because we have the possibility to assess only two devices from every PEF-meters type and the number is statistically too small to characterise the brand name of PEF-meter type.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings proved that PEF-meters can be used safely a longer period than expected, if their maintenance is flawless.

DISCLOSURE: The following authors have nothing to disclose: Paraschiva Postolache, Octavian Petrescu, Floarea Mimi Nitu, Roxana Maria Nemes

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