LetterCorrespondence

Promoting the Inclusion of Lung Volumes in the Reversibility Evaluation

Helmi Ben Saad
Respiratory Care February 2017, 62 (2) 255-256; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.05277

To the Editor:

I read with great interest the recent paper of McCartney et al1 highlighting the importance of lung volumes in the investigation of reversibility of air-flow obstruction. Because lung hyperinflation has become a major concern in the management of COPD, such papers should be encouraged. However, 2 points should be highlighted.

First, in the above retrospective study,1 change in residual volume (RV) was expressed as a percentage from the initial value ([post-bronchodilator minus pre-bronchodilator]/pre-bronchodilator), and 5 thresholds (8, 10, 12, 15, and 20%) were tested. However, in the literature, other interesting ways to express reversibility with different thresholds have been evaluated. Among them, an absolute value decrease of −300 mL (post-bronchodilator minus pre-bronchodilator)2,3 or a −10% decrease from predicted value ([post-bronchodilator minus pre-bronchodilator]/predicted value)2,4 were considered as clinically important2–4. In a Tunisian study2 including 366 heavy smokers divided into 2 groups (hyperinflated [n = 314] and free from lung hyperinflation [n = 52]), it was found that in the hyperinflated group, and compared with changes in FEV1 and FVC (a 12% and 0.2-L increase), the above RV changes detected more respondents (54% for FEV1 and FVC vs 65% for RV). This was not the case for the group free from lung hyperinflation (23% for FEV1 and FVC vs 35% for RV). Moreover, in the hyperinflated group free from air flow obstruction (n = 58) and compared with changes in FEV1 and FVC, the above changes in RV detected more respondents (24% for FEV1 and FVC vs 71% for RV). According to the authors, it seems essential to include RV as a criterion of reversibility evaluation.2

Second, I agree with McCartney et al1 that “there is no clear consensus on what constitutes reversibility in subjects with air flow obstruction.”5,6 This could be a source of confusion and/or misdiagnosis for clinicians and respiratory researchers. However, to better understand how subjects with COPD respond to bronchodilators, it will be more helpful to derive post-bronchodilator spirometric norms from healthy subjects.5 However, to date, only 2 post-bronchodilator spirometric reference values in adults have been published.7,8

In conclusion, in daily practice, reversibility should be identified in all subjects with COPD using the changes not only in FEV1 and FVC as primary outcomes, but also RV. Sufficient evidence is now available to justify promoting this message, particularly through the consensus statements of highly influential organizations like the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease9 and the American Thoracic and European Respiratory Societies.10 It is time for professional societies to standardize the spirometric criteria of airway reversibility in COPD.

Footnotes

  • Dr Ben Saad has disclosed no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. McCartney CT,
    2. Weis MN,
    3. Ruppel GL,
    4. Nayak RP
    . Residual volume and total lung capacity to assess reversibility in obstructive lung disease. Respir Care 2016;61(11):1505–1512.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ben Saad H,
    2. Ben Amor L,
    3. Ben Mdalla S,
    4. Ghannouchi I,
    5. Ben Essghair M,
    6. Sfaxi R,
    7. et al
    . The importance of lung volumes in the investigation of heavy smokers. Rev Mal Respir 2014;31(1):29–40.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. O'Donnell DE,
    2. Laveneziana P
    . Lung hyperinflation in COPD: the impact of pharmacotherapy. Eur Respir Rev 2006;15(100):85–89.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. O'Donnell DE,
    2. Sciurba F,
    3. Celli B,
    4. Mahler DA,
    5. Webb KA,
    6. Kalberg CJ,
    7. Knobil K
    . Effect of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol on lung hyperinflation and exercise endurance in COPD. Chest 2006;130(3):647–656.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Ben Saad H,
    2. Ben Attia Saafi R,
    3. Rouatbi S,
    4. Ben Mdella S,
    5. Garrouche A,
    6. Hadj Mtir A,
    7. et al
    . Which definition to use when defining reversibility of airway obstruction? Rev Mal Respir 2007;24(9):1107–1115.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Ben Saad H,
    2. Préfaut C,
    3. Tabka Z,
    4. Zbidi A,
    5. Hayot M
    . The forgotten message from GOLD: FVC is a primary clinical outcome measure of bronchodilator reversibility in COPD. Pulm Pharmacol Ther 2008;21(5):767–773.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Johannessen A,
    2. Lehmann S,
    3. Omenaas ER,
    4. Eide GE,
    5. Bakke PS,
    6. Gulsvik A
    . Post-bronchodilator spirometry reference values in adults and implications for disease management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006;173(12):1316–1325.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Pérez-Padilla R,
    2. Torre Bouscoulet L,
    3. Vázquez-García JC,
    4. Muiño A,
    5. Márquez M,
    6. López MV,
    7. et al
    . [Spirometry reference values after inhalation of 200 microg of salbutamol]. Arch Bronconeumol 2007;43(10):530–534.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Available from: http://goldcopd.org/global-strategy-diagnosis-management-prevention-copd-2016. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  10. 10.↵
    1. Celli BR,
    2. Decramer M,
    3. Wedzicha JA,
    4. Wilson KC,
    5. Agustí A,
    6. Criner GJ,
    7. et al
    . An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: research questions in COPD. Eur Respir J 2015;45(4):879–905.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

 

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Related Articles

Cited By...