Hidden FIVC

I was about to put a PFT report I’d been reviewing in my outbox when I noticed something odd about the flow-volume loop.

Hidden FIVC_redacted 1

What I saw was that the final inspiration of the FVC maneuver had ended to the left of the initial inspiration. This means a couple of thing, first and foremost that the FIVC was larger than the FVC and that the FVC was likely underestimated because the patient hadn’t really taken a full inspiration prior to exhaling. I had already looked at the raw data for the patient’s spirometry results for other reasons but I pulled them up again to see if I had missed something.

What I saw was that the spirometry test with the best FVC, FEV1, PEF and expiratory time was the one that had been selected for reporting. I also saw that all of the patient’s spirometry results were fairly uniform and met the ATS/ERS requirements for repeatability. Despite the fact that the FVC in every effort was likely submaximal the patient had managed to perform the FVC maneuvers with remarkable similarity.

What I didn’t see however, was any visible indication that the FIVC was larger than the FVC (and it’s important to note that the software module I use to review spirometry results is the same that’s used to perform the test in the first place).

Hidden FIVC_redacted 2

I had to page down a bit in the tabular results to see that yes, the FIVC was significantly larger than the FVC. In one sense this didn’t make a difference for this particular patient’s report because I had already noted that the SVC from the patient’s lung volume test was larger than the FVC and that FEV1/SVC ratio was reduced which indicated the presence of airway obstruction. The FIVC and SVC were in fact essentially identical so the FEV1/VC wasn’t going to be any different.

When I review a report that has lung volumes and/or a DLCO along with spirometry I always compared the SVC from the lung volumes and the inspired volume from the DLCO with the FVC. If either are larger than the FVC I recalculate the FEV1/VC ratio to see if it is low. Patients with airway obstruction often have a significantly larger SVC or Inspired Volume than their FVC and this is likely because of the airway compression that occurs during a forced expiratory effort that doesn’t occur during a more relaxed effort.

What I tend to forget however (and this is a good reminder), is that the FVC can also be underestimated because of a suboptimal inspiration. Detecting an inadequate inspiratory effort tends to be difficult because there usually isn’t any good indication that it is happening. To some extent you can tell through body language or from irreproducible results that a patient isn’t inhaling correctly but unlike a suboptimal expiration there are no objective criteria for a suboptimal inspiration. In this patient’s case because their flow-volume loops, volume-time curves and numerical results all met quality and repeatability criteria there was no particular indication at all that the inspiration was lower than it should have been.

What is important about all this is that when I review the patient’s raw spirometry test data (and more importantly when the test is being performed) it is very difficult to see that the FIVC is larger than the FVC. This is because all of the inspiratory flow-volume loop and volume-time data are cut off at the point of the initial peak inspiration for the FVC effort. Why is this happening? Strictly speaking this is a decision made by a programmer or other software designer and not from anything in the ATS/ERS standards for spirometry, so the blame, if there is any, can be placed on the manufacturer of our test equipment.

Why did the larger inspiratory effort show up on the report but not when I reviewed the raw spirometry data? Maybe there were different design specifications, or maybe because of an oversight, or because the graph software was written by a different programmer or maybe even because of sloppy programming. Regardless of the reason it was fortuitous because otherwise I wouldn’t have noticed it at all. But this also points out a blind spot we may all have. Look in any textbook or journal article and you will see that it is a standard convention that the position of the flow-volume loop in its graph is always determined by the initial inspiratory effort and not by any subsequent inhalation. This is probably a mistake on our part.

The ATS/ERS recommendation is to use the largest VC, regardless of the source, when calculating the FEV1/VC ratio. For this reason, the maximal flow-volume loop should be positioned on its graph relative to the largest inspiration, not the initial inspiration. If this was done, the flow-volume loop for this patient would have looked like this:

Hidden FIVC redacted 3

When displayed this way it would have been immediately evident that the initial inspiration was inadequate and for this reason it would be my recommendation that this should be the standard approach for graphing flow-volume loops. This may be a problem unique to the manufacturer of my lab’s test equipment but I’d be willing to bet it isn’t. I don’t have access to any other manufacturer’s test equipment so I can’t verify this in any way but since “everybody” knows how flow-volume loops are “supposed” to be graphed I’d be inclined to guess it’s pretty universal.

We have a limited amount of space on our reports and there are many spirometry values we don’t report both for the sake of clarity and the sake of brevity. FIVC is not a value we report and in fact we look at it only rarely. This is due to the fact that almost always the FIVC is less than or at best equal to the FVC so it doesn’t seem like it’s particularly important. This doesn’t mean that an FIVC can’t be an important clue when assessing spirometry test quality. It also doesn’t means that the FIVC should be overlooked when searching for the largest VC for the FEV1/VC ratio. Most importantly though, it means that the FIVC shouldn’t be hidden by artificially limiting how much of it is displayed on a flow-volume loop when it is being reviewed and most particularly when the test is being performed.

Creative Commons License
PFT Blog by Richard Johnston is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

3 thoughts on “Hidden FIVC

  1. Sub-maximal inspiration prior to FVC.

    Hello Richard,

    I agree that a inspiration prior to a forced expiratory maneuver will underestimated the FVC and yes, according to ATS-ERS the FEV1/ (F)VC should come from the largest VC regardless of where the value is derived.

    One further fact that needs mentioning, is that not only will the FVC be underestimated, but also the FEV1 value itself. Consider three trials, where all being equal, PEF and submaximal inspiratory volume the same and repeatable. If the therapist/tech dose not catch the submaximal inspiration in the pre FVC and bronchodilator is given, but in the post FVC the patient decides to inspire to TLC prior to the blast there will be a false change/improvement in not only FVC but also FEV1 secondary too better effort (being at TLC prior to blast) in the post- suggesting significant change post bronchodilator.

    I use this analogy with students that come through our lab- One of the characteristics of the lungs are their elastic recoil. Take two elicits with equal “snap” recoil, pulling one 100% back and the second one only 80% back of maximum stretch (the percent value represented being at TLC) I’m sure that you would agree that once the elastics are released that the one that is pulled all the way back to “TLC” will produce a larger FVC. Now comes the matter of the FEV1.

    I have only one question to ask- of the two elastics,
    (100 and 80% “TLC”) are released, which one will cover more “ground”/ volume in one second of time? Being at TLC prior to the blast fully engages the elastic recoil of the lungs giving you true FEV1.

    It is important for all technicians be vigilant when doing spirometry- ensuring that the patient is at TLC prior to the blast. If taken at face value, the change with bronchodator would suggest significant improvement (12% and 200ml in FVC and or FEV1) leading to a false diagnosis or indicating improvement in flows with bronchodilators.

    Try it out yourself without bronchodilator- Pre FVC at 80% of your TLC and “post” FVC at 100% of TLC prior to blast. What you will see is not only the change, but close examination of the loop will show no tapering in the terminal section of the FVL but rather an equally spaced parallel FVL through to termination.

    Mohamad Osman

    • Mohamed –

      Your point about FEV1 also being reduced if the FVC effort does not start at TLC is absolutely correct, and yes, elastic recoil is the primary (but not the only) reason for this. I agree that technicians need to be vigilant but it is a lot harder to determine that a patient has reached their maximum inhalation than it is their maximum exhalation, particularly if their FVC volume is as repeatable as this patient’s was. Thanks for your comment.

      – Richard

  2. Hi Richard, just checking out your website. A hidden jewel for sure. I wanted to comment on this post regarding submaximal inhalation error. I wish I had seen this post a little earlier, David Kaminsky from the University of Vermont and I recently wrote a letter about this which will be published in Respiratory Care. Had I known about your posting I would have invited you to co-author. It is an important error that is not adequately addressed by the current guideline. Jeff

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.