Changes of Pulmonary Disability Grades according to the Spirometry Reference Equations

Joung Oh Lee; Byung-Soon Choi

doi:10.4046/trd.2010.69.2.108

Journal List > Tuberc Respir Dis > v.69(2) > 1001521

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee and Choi: Changes of Pulmonary Disability Grades according to the Spirometry Reference Equations

Original Article

Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases

Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases 2010; 69(2): 108-114.

Published online: 31 August 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4046/trd.2010.69.2.108

Changes of Pulmonary Disability Grades according to the Spirometry Reference Equations

Joung Oh Lee, M.P.H., Byung-Soon Choi, M.D., Ph.D.

Occupational Lung Diseases Institute, Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service (KCOMWEL), Ansan, Korea.

Address for correspondence: Joung Oh Lee, M.P.H. Occupational Lung Diseases Institute, Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service (KCOMWEL), 95, Il-dong, Sangrok-gu, Ansan 426-858, Korea. Phone: 82-31-500-1805, Fax: 82-31-500-1811, ljo9704@naver.com

Received 18 May 2010 Accepted 6 August 2010

Abstract

Background

The aim was to estimate the differences between pulmonary disability grades according to the spirometry reference equations (the Korean equation and the Morris equation).

Methods

Spirometry was performed on 16,916 male and 1,353 female special examination for pneumoconiosis, in the period of 2007~2009. Changes in predictive values for forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁), forced vital capacity (FVC) and FEV₁/FVC and in disability grade were evaluated using both equations.

Results

Mean FVCs for men and women were 4,218.7 mL and 2,801.5 mL in predictive values after the application of the Korean equation, and 3,763.9 mL and 2,395.6 mL after the Morris equation, respectively. Compared with the Morris equation, the Korean equation showed 10.8% and 14.5% of excesses for men and women (p<0.001). Mean FEV₁s for men and women were 3,102.5 mL and 2,107.1 mL in the Korean equation, and 2,667.8 mL and 1,699.6 mL in the Morris equation, respectively. Compared with the Morris equation, the Korean equation showed 14.0% and 19.3% of excesses for men and women (p<0.001). Men and women who showed the changes of disability grades using the Korean equation in place of the Morris equation were 23.9% (4,052/16,916) and 22.9% (311/1,353) on FVC, and 23.1% (3,913/16,916) and 10.7% (145/1,353) on FEV₁.

Conclusion

Applying different reference equations for spirometry has resulted in changes for disability grades in special examination for pneumoconiosis.

Keywords: Spirometry, Pneumoconiosis, Morris Equation, Korean Equation

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

Effect of different reference equation on the interpretation of spirometry disability patterns.

Table 1

Reference equations for FVC and FEV₁

FVC: forced vital capacity; FEV₁: forced expiratory volume in one second.

Table 2

Characteristics of the subjects

Values are presented as number or mean±standard deviation. FVC: forced vital capacity; FEV₁: forced expiratory volume in one second; FEV₁/FVC: percent of FEV₁/FVC.

Table 3

Mean predicted values of spirometry when the two different reference equations are applied to the study subjects

FVC: forced vital capacity; FEV₁: forced expiratory volume in one second.

^*Calculated by t-test.

Table 4

Distribution of disability grades classified by FVC when the two different reference equations are applied

Table 5

Distribution of disability grades classified by FEV1 when the two different reference equations are applied

Table 6

Compares of agreement according by FVC reference equations

SE: standard error; CI: confidence interval; K-M: Korean equation and Morris equation.

Table 7

Compares of agreement according by FEV₁ reference equations

SE: standard error; CI: confidence interval; K-M: Korean equation and Morris equation.

References

1. Paek D, Choi JK, Choi BS, Chung KC. Normal predictive values of FVC and FEV₁ for healthy Korean male workers. Korean J Occup Environ Med. 1994. 6:175–186.

2. Miller MR, Hankinson J, Brusasco V, Burgos F, Casaburi R, Coates A, et al. ATS/ERS Task Force. Standardisation of spirometry. Eur Respir J. 2005. 26:319–338.

3. Miller MR, Crapo R, Hankinson J, Brusasco V, Burgos F, Casaburi R, et al. ATS/ERS Task Force. General considerations for lung function testing. Eur Respir J. 2005. 26:153–161.

4. American Thoracic Society. Lung function testing: selection of reference values and interpretative strategies. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1991. 144:1202–1218.

5. American Thoracic Society. Standardization of spirometry: 1994 update. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995. 152:1107–1136.

6. Choi JK, Paek D, Lee JO. Normal predictive values of spirometry in Korean population. Tuberc Respir Dis. 2005. 58:230–242.

7. Morris JF, Koski A, Johnson LC. Spirometric standards for healthy nonsmoking adults. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1971. 103:57–67.

8. Kory RC, Callahan R, Boren HG, Syner JC. The Veterans Administration-Army cooperative study of pulmonary function I Clinical spirometry in normal men. Am J Med. 1961. 30:243–258.

9. Oh YM, Hong SB, Shim TS, Lim CM, Koh Y, Kim WS, et al. Effect of a new spirometric reference equation on the interpretation of spirometric patterns and disease severity. Tuberc Respir Dis. 2006. 60:215–220.

TOOLS

Similar articles