Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOtto-Yáñez M.
dc.contributor.authorSarmento da Nóbrega A.J.
dc.contributor.authorTorres-Castro R.
dc.contributor.authorAraújo P.R.S.
dc.contributor.authorCarvalho de Farias C.A.
dc.contributor.authorDornelas De Andrade A.D.F.
dc.contributor.authorPuppo H.
dc.contributor.authorResqueti V.R.
dc.contributor.authorFregonezi G.A.D.F.
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-02T22:25:11Z
dc.date.available2020-09-02T22:25:11Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier10.3389/fphys.2020.00537
dc.identifier.citation11, , -
dc.identifier.issn1664042X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12728/5683
dc.descriptionPurpose: To evaluate the concordance between the value of the actual maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) and the estimated value by multiplying the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and a different value established in the literature. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted with healthy subjects and patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Five prediction formulas MVV were used for the comparison with the MVV values. Agreement between MVV measured and MVV obtained from five prediction equations were studied. FEV1 values were used to estimate MVV. Correlation and agreement analysis of the values was performed in two groups using the Pearson test and the Bland–Altman method; these groups were one group with 207 healthy subjects and the second group with 83 patients diagnosed with COPD, respectively. Results: We recruited 207 healthy subjects (105 women, age 47 ± 17 years) and 83 COPD patients (age 66 ± 6 years; 29 GOLD II, 30 GOLD III, and 24 GOLD IV) for the study. All prediction equations presented a significant correlation with the MVV value (from 0.38 to 0.86, p < 0.05) except for the GOLD II subgroup, which had a poor agreement with measured MVV. In healthy subjects, the mean difference of the value of bias (and limits of agreement) varied between -3.9% (-32.8 to 24.9%), and 27% (-1.4 to 55.3%). In COPD patients, the mean difference of value of bias (and limits of agreement) varied between -4.4% (-49.4 to 40.6%), and 26.3% (-18.3 to 70.9%). The results were similar in the subgroup analysis. Conclusion: The equations to estimate the value of MVV present a good degree of correlation with the real value of MVV, but they also show a poor concordance. For this reason, we should not use the estimated results as a replacement for the real value of MVV. © Copyright © 2020 Otto-Yáñez, Sarmento da Nóbrega, Torres-Castro, Araújo, Carvalho de Farias, Dornelas De Andrade, Puppo, Resqueti and Fregonezi.
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherFrontiers Media S.A.
dc.subjectCOPD
dc.subjectforced expiratory volume in the first second
dc.subjectmaximal voluntary ventilation
dc.subjectprediction equation
dc.subjectprediction formulas
dc.subjectadult
dc.subjectaged
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectchronic obstructive lung disease
dc.subjectclinical evaluation
dc.subjectcontrolled study
dc.subjectdisease association
dc.subjectfemale
dc.subjectforced expiratory volume
dc.subjectforced vital capacity
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectmajor clinical study
dc.subjectmale
dc.subjectmaximal expiratory pressure
dc.subjectmaximal inspiratory pressure
dc.subjectmaximal voluntary ventilation
dc.subjectprediction
dc.subjectretrospective study
dc.subjectsex ratio
dc.titleMaximal Voluntary Ventilation Should Not Be Estimated From the Forced Expiratory Volume in the First Second in Healthy People and COPD Patients
dc.typeArticle


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record