User login
The PiKo-1 device (nSpire Health) has limited utility in determining forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in children with asthma, according to Jonathan M. Gaffin, MD, and his associates.
In a study of 242 children, spirometry and PiKo-1 devices were used to test FEV1. In the Bland-Altman analysis, it reported a mean difference between FEV1 measured by spirometry and PiKo-1 of 0.14 L. The PiKo-1 FEV1 was found to be moderately biased to underestimate FEV1 with increasing volumes, for every 1-liter increase in spirometry FEV1, having the difference between spirometry and PiKo-1 increased by 0.19 L (P < .001).
Researchers also used the pulmonary function test (PFT) and t showed variability was 0.4 L for spirometry at 2 SDs, a significant smaller range than seen in the PFT-PiKo confidence intervals (1.1 L). It is noted that this indicates that differences are credited to distinctions in the devices themselves and not within the techniques of the person using them. There was no effect on the order of PFT or PiKo-1 performance (P = .88).
“The findings from this study suggest that the PiKo-1 device has limited utility in assessing FEV1 in clinical or research settings in children with asthma,” researchers concluded. “Further investigation of its use in this respect and with different populations may prove the device more valuable.”
Find the full study in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2016.06.022).
The PiKo-1 device (nSpire Health) has limited utility in determining forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in children with asthma, according to Jonathan M. Gaffin, MD, and his associates.
In a study of 242 children, spirometry and PiKo-1 devices were used to test FEV1. In the Bland-Altman analysis, it reported a mean difference between FEV1 measured by spirometry and PiKo-1 of 0.14 L. The PiKo-1 FEV1 was found to be moderately biased to underestimate FEV1 with increasing volumes, for every 1-liter increase in spirometry FEV1, having the difference between spirometry and PiKo-1 increased by 0.19 L (P < .001).
Researchers also used the pulmonary function test (PFT) and t showed variability was 0.4 L for spirometry at 2 SDs, a significant smaller range than seen in the PFT-PiKo confidence intervals (1.1 L). It is noted that this indicates that differences are credited to distinctions in the devices themselves and not within the techniques of the person using them. There was no effect on the order of PFT or PiKo-1 performance (P = .88).
“The findings from this study suggest that the PiKo-1 device has limited utility in assessing FEV1 in clinical or research settings in children with asthma,” researchers concluded. “Further investigation of its use in this respect and with different populations may prove the device more valuable.”
Find the full study in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2016.06.022).
The PiKo-1 device (nSpire Health) has limited utility in determining forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in children with asthma, according to Jonathan M. Gaffin, MD, and his associates.
In a study of 242 children, spirometry and PiKo-1 devices were used to test FEV1. In the Bland-Altman analysis, it reported a mean difference between FEV1 measured by spirometry and PiKo-1 of 0.14 L. The PiKo-1 FEV1 was found to be moderately biased to underestimate FEV1 with increasing volumes, for every 1-liter increase in spirometry FEV1, having the difference between spirometry and PiKo-1 increased by 0.19 L (P < .001).
Researchers also used the pulmonary function test (PFT) and t showed variability was 0.4 L for spirometry at 2 SDs, a significant smaller range than seen in the PFT-PiKo confidence intervals (1.1 L). It is noted that this indicates that differences are credited to distinctions in the devices themselves and not within the techniques of the person using them. There was no effect on the order of PFT or PiKo-1 performance (P = .88).
“The findings from this study suggest that the PiKo-1 device has limited utility in assessing FEV1 in clinical or research settings in children with asthma,” researchers concluded. “Further investigation of its use in this respect and with different populations may prove the device more valuable.”
Find the full study in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2016.06.022).
FROM THE ANNALS OF ALLERGY, ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY