Inadequate peak expiratory flow meter characteristics detected by a computerised explosive decompression device
- PMID: 12728161
- PMCID: PMC1746677
- DOI: 10.1136/thorax.58.5.411
Inadequate peak expiratory flow meter characteristics detected by a computerised explosive decompression device
Abstract
Background: Recent evidence suggests that the frequency response requirements for peak expiratory flow (PEF) meters are higher than was first thought and that the American Thoracic Society (ATS) waveforms to test PEF meters may not be adequate for the purpose.
Methods: The dynamic response of mini-Wright (MW), Vitalograph (V), TruZone (TZ), MultiSpiro (MS) and pneumotachograph (PT) flow meters was tested by delivering two differently shaped flow-time profiles from a computer controlled explosive decompression device fitted with a fast response solenoid valve. These profiles matched population 5th and 95th centiles for rise time from 10% to 90% of PEF and dwell time of flow above 90% PEF. Profiles were delivered five times with identical chamber pressure and solenoid aperture at PEF. Any difference in recorded PEF for the two profiles indicates a poor dynamic response.
Results: The absolute (% of mean) flow differences in l/min for the V, MW, and PT PEF meters were 25 (4.7), 20 (3.9), and 2 (0.3), respectively, at PEF approximately 500 l/min, and 25 (10.5), 20 (8.7) and 6 (3.0) at approximately 200 l/min. For TZ and MS meters at approximately 500 l/min the differences were 228 (36.1) and 257 (39.2), respectively, and at approximately 200 l/min they were 51 (23.9) and 1 (0.5). All the meters met ATS accuracy requirements when tested with their waveforms.
Conclusions: An improved method for testing the dynamic response of flow meters detects marked overshoot (underdamping) of TZ and MS responses not identified by the 26 ATS waveforms. This error could cause patient misclassification when using such meters with asthma guidelines.
Comment in
-
Usefulness of peak expiratory flow measurements: is it just a matter of instrument accuracy?Thorax. 2003 May;58(5):375-6. doi: 10.1136/thorax.58.5.375. Thorax. 2003. PMID: 12728154 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Frequency response of variable orifice type peak flow meters: requirements and testing.Eur Respir J. 1995 May;8(5):849-55. Eur Respir J. 1995. PMID: 7656961
-
The accuracy of portable peak flow meters.Thorax. 1992 Nov;47(11):904-9. doi: 10.1136/thx.47.11.904. Thorax. 1992. PMID: 1465746 Free PMC article.
-
Frequency response of portable PEF meters.Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995 Aug;152(2):702-6. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.152.2.7633729. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995. PMID: 7633729
-
[Comparison of different types of peak flow meter and reference values for peak expiratory flow (PEF) for healthy Japanese subjects].Nihon Rinsho. 1996 Nov;54(11):2927-32. Nihon Rinsho. 1996. PMID: 8950932 Review. Japanese.
-
Incorrect use of peak flow meters: are you observing your patients?J Asthma. 2014 Aug;51(6):566-72. doi: 10.3109/02770903.2014.914218. Epub 2014 May 9. J Asthma. 2014. PMID: 24720711 Review.
Cited by
-
Joint Indian Chest Society-National College of Chest Physicians (India) guidelines for spirometry.Lung India. 2019 Apr;36(Supplement):S1-S35. doi: 10.4103/lungindia.lungindia_300_18. Lung India. 2019. PMID: 31006703 Free PMC article.
-
The role of lung volume recruitment therapy in neuromuscular disease: a narrative review.Front Rehabil Sci. 2023 Jul 26;4:1164628. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2023.1164628. eCollection 2023. Front Rehabil Sci. 2023. PMID: 37565183 Free PMC article. Review.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous