Comparability of Pulmonary Function Results from 13 Laboratories in a Metropolitan Area

Abstract

We have observed that the results of pulmonary function tests obtained at one site, in general, may not be considered 'acceptable' at another site-in part because of known or suspected variability in equipment and techniques. We sought to docu-ment the presence or absence of such variability in our metropolitan area. METHODS & MATERIALS: We compared the test results from 5 trained healthy sub-jects (3 men and 2 women) studied in 13 Denver-area pulmonary function laboratories in a randomized order and at approximately the same time of day. RESULTS: We performed analysis of variance on commonly reported parameters and found no significant difference for FVC (p = 0.11), FEV1 (p = 0.075), FEF 25-75% (p = 0.41), and FRC by helium dilution (p = 0.22). However, marked differ-ences between certain sites could be clinically important. In addition, we found a statistically significant difference for DLCO (p < 0.001) and TLC (p = 0.024). Six different brands of pulmonary function equipment were used by the 13 hospitals, and differences in the number of trials performed, sequence of testing (eg, FRC determinations were sometimes done first, sometimes last), and calculation of the DLCO breath-hold time. CONCLUSION: We conclude that although the FVC, FEV1, FEF25-75%, and FRC measured by helium dilution were not statistically dif-ferent in healthy trained subjects in the 13 hospitals studied, clinically important differences may exist. The DLCO and TLC were statistically different. To minimize variability and improve comparability, hospitals in a given area should give con-sideration to adopting standardized techniques, using comparable equipment, and adopting common reference equations.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ogilvie

, Forster

, Blakemore

, Morton

. A standardized breathholding technique for the clinical measurement of the diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide. J Clin Invest 1957;36:1–17.

Becklake MR , Permutt

Evaluation of tests of lung function for "screening" for early detection of chronic obstructive lung disease. In: Macklem

, Permutt

, eds. Lung biology in health and disease, Vol 12. The lung in the transition between health and disease. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1979:345–387.

Gaensler

, Smith

. Attachment for automated single breath diffusing capacity measurement. Chest 1973;63:136–145.

Snedecor

, Cochran

. Statistical methods, 8th ed. Ames IA: Iowa State University Press, 1989:254–272.

American Thoracic Society. Standardization of spirometry. Am Rev Respir Dis 1987;136:1030–1050. (Published concurrently in Respir Care 1987;32:1039-1060.)

American Thoracic Society. Single breath carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (transfer factor). Am Rev Respir Dis 1987;136:1299–1307.

Jones

, Meade

A theoretical and experimental analysis of anomalies in the estimation of pulmonary diffusing capacity by the single breath method. QJ Exp Physiol 1961;46:131–143.

Clausen

, Crapo

, Gardner

Interlaboratory comparisons of pulmonary function testing (abstract). Am Rev Respir Dis 1984;129(4, Part 2):A37.

Teculescu

, Stanescu

"Classic" versus "effective" timing of breathhold lung diffusing capacity determinations. Rev Roum Med Int 1970;7:361–367.

10.

Teculescu

, Stanescu

. Lung diffusing capacity: normal values in male smokers and nonsmokers using the breath-hold technique. Scand J Respir Dis 1970;51:137–149.