|
KMID : 0381319790180020033
|
|
Korean Journal of Occupational Health
1979 Volume.18 No. 2 p.33 ~ p.41
|
|
|
Evaluation of Forced End-Expiratory Flow
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
The present study analyzed the measurement of forced end-expiratory flow at 75 to 85 percent of forced vital capacity(FEF_(75-85％)) from the forced vital capacity curve in 291 healthy male adults who were totally free of symptoms or history of cardiorespiratory disease, in order to study the normal standard in the form of prediction equation, its variability and the relations with the other ventilatory indices. And we compared this value with the measurement of forced mid-expiratory flow(FEF_(25-75％), MMF) as the screening method t detect early obstructive disease of small airways.
In the healthy subjects, FEF_(75-85％) had a negative correlation with age and a positive correlation with height. The prediction equation for FEF_(75-85％) versus age and height was FEF_(75-85％)(㎖/sec)＝－29.56 age(year)＋19.081 height(㎝)－735.65 with the standard error of estimate of 351.5 ㎖/sec.
There was no imporvement of interindividual variability for both FEF_(75-85％) and FEF_(25-75％) when expiratory flows in liter per sec were divided by the forced vital capacity.
FEF_(75-85％) was significantly correlated with the other ventilatory indices, of which the largest correlation was with maximal expiratory flow at 25 per cent of the forced vital capacity(r＝0.914) in the healthy subjects.
In 81 pneumoconiosis patients with presumed small airways obstruction, the values for FEF_(75-85％) and FEF_(25-75％) were 61 per cent and 80 per cent of predicted value and twenty-four per cent of the observed values for FEF_(75-85％) were less than nimus 1.645 standard error of estimate and ninety-six per cent were less than 75 per cent of predicted mean. With the above consideration in mind, we suggested that FEF_(75-85％) might be a more useful simple ventilatory index than FEF_(25-75％) in detecting the early obstructive pulmonary disease and use of 75 per cent of predicted mean for FEF_(75-85％) was of greater value in attempting to screen normal from abnormal population than using 1.645 standard error of estimate.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|
|