FVC measurements that are mostly gone but not completely forgotten

When Tiffeneau described the FEV1 in 1947 and Gaensler the timed FVC and FEV1/FVC ratio in 1950 this opened up an entirely new territory for pulmonary investigators to explore. Numerous new measurements were rapidly mapped out with often conflicting titles. The situation became confusing enough that the British Thoracic Society met in 1956 specifically to standardize terminology. At this time only the volume-time curve was available for measurement purposes (usually a pen trace on kymograph paper) and this fact helped determine what measurements it was possible for researchers to make.

These measurements were in somewhat common use for the first decades of modern spirometry. They have since mostly passed into disuse and have largely been forgotten either because they were superceded by the flow-volume loop or because they never established any particular clinical value. Even so most of these measurements are included as reporting options in current spirometry testing systems. Despite being of questionable value they are still interesting if for no other reason than that they highlight the incredible number of ways that a volume-time curve can be analyzed.

V_T_Curve_FEV

FEV0.5

In retrospect the use of the FEV1 and FEV1/FVC ratio to assess airway function seems inevitable but in the early decades it wasn’t clear what timed measurements were optimal. Like the FEV1 the forced expired volume in 0.5 seconds can be measured from the volume-time curve. The FEV0.5 is considered more reproducible than the Peak Expiratory Flow and has been used to assess cough. Although normal values for the FEV0.5 were included in the reference equations from the 1961 VA-Army and Kunudson’s 1976 spirometry study this measurement has rarely been used in adults but has instead found extensive use when measuring and reporting spirometry in infants and children.

Continue reading

The FEV3/FVC ratio, a useful tool for assessing early and mild airway obstruction

The FEV1 and FEV1/FVC ratio seems to have become the predominant, if not the sole factor for determining the presence of airway obstruction. It is true that a reduced FEV1/FVC ratio provides a strong and reliable signal for this purpose but its limitations have also been recognized for quite a while. The most obvious one is that the FEV1/FVC ratio will be falsely elevated when the FVC is underestimated. This is the primary factor driving the interest in FEV6 and the FEV1/FEV6 ratio. Less well appreciated is the fact that there are many causes and sites within the airways that can be involved in airway obstruction and that the focus on the FEV1/FVC ratio may cause certain forms of airway obstruction to be overlooked.

The FEF25-75 (aka MMEF) was originally proposed as way to determine the presence of small airways disease but it has since been shown to be an unreliable indicator. Most of the pulmonary physicians I work with have expressed doubt that there is such a thing as small airways disease but that doesn’t mean that some patients don’t have mild airway obstruction that is not evident when assessed solely by the FEV1/FVC ratio.

Continue reading