Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1237554
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
Diagnostischer Wert der Peak-Flow-Variabilität bei Verdacht auf Asthma bronchiale in der Hausarztpraxis
Diagnostic accuracy of peak flow variability in patients with suspected diagnosis of asthma in general practicePublication History
eingereicht: 29.4.2009
akzeptiert: 9.7.2009
Publication Date:
02 October 2009 (online)
Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund und Fragestellung: Die Selbstmessung der Peak-Expiratory-Flow(PEF)-Variabilität zählt zu den diagnostischen Standardverfahren bei Verdacht auf Asthma bronchiale in der Hausarztpraxis. Dennoch ist der diagnostische Wert für die Primärversorgung umstritten.
Patienten und Methodik: In einer prospektiven diagnostischen Studie wurden 219 Personen mit der hausärztlichen Verdachtsdiagnose einer obstruktiven Atemwegserkrankung untersucht. Indextest war die PEF-Variabilität, die für jeden Patienten nach 3 unterschiedlichen Methoden berechnet wurde. Referenzstandard waren Bodyplethysmographie und Bronchoprovokation.
Ergebnisse: 132 (60,3 %) Teilnehmer vervollständigten ein PEF-Protokoll. Darunter waren 60 (45,5 %) Asthmatiker. Sensitivität, Spezifität, positiver Vorhersagewert (positive predictive value = PPV) und negativer Vorhersagewert (negative predictive value = NPV) waren bei allen 3 Methoden gering. Bei der Anhebung des Grenzwerts der PEF-Variabilität auf > 25 % wurde der PPV für die Diagnose Asthma auf bis zu 77,8 % gesteigert. Allerdings hatte nur jeder 6. Proband eine PEF-Variabilität > 25 %. Zum Ausschluss der Diagnose Asthma bronchiale war die PEF-Variabilitätsmessung ungeeignet.
Folgerung: Der diagnostische Wert des PEF-Protokolls für die Hausarztpraxis war insgesamt gering. Damit bleibt die Bronchoprovokation im Falle einer unauffälligen hausärztlichen Spirometrie unerlässlich zur Detektion eines Asthma bronchiale. Es stellt sich die Frage, ob der Stellenwert der PEF-Variabilität in den nationalen Leitlinien nicht neu überdacht werden sollte.
Summary
Background: National guidelines advice self measurement of peak flow variability as a diagnostic tool for asthma. However, its actual value for this purpose remains controversial.
Patients and methods: 219 persons were recruited by 14 general practitioners after they presented themselves for the first time with symptoms suspicious of obstructive airway disease. They were asked to measure and record peak expiratory flow (PEF) three times daily for two weeks. PEF variability was calculated with three different indices and compared to the post bronchodilator FEV1 response or methacholine inhalation challenge.
Results: 132 (60.3 %) patients completed the peak flow diary. 60 (45.5 %) of them were found to have asthma. But the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of PEF variability were low. The number of daily measurements did not enhance diagnostic accuracy. Variation of the cut-off value (PEF variability > 25 %) increased the probability for asthma to 77.8 %. However, only one out of six had PEF variability > 25 %. None of the three methods sufficed to rule out asthma.
Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of PEF variability was low. Thus, in case of inconclusive spirometric results in general practice bronchial provocation remains an essential tool for diagnosing asthma. Diagnostic algorithms, as recommended by national guidelines, should be reconsidered in relation to the diagnostic value of peak flow variability.
Schlüsselwörter
Peak Expiratory Flow - Peak-Flow-Variabilität - PEF - Asthma - Hausarztpraxis - Primärversorgung
Keywords
peak expiratory flow - peak flow variability - PEF - diagnosis in primary care - asthma
Literatur
- 1 Ärztliches Zentrum für Qualität in der Medizin (ÄZQ) .Nationale Versorgungsleitlinie Asthma, Konsultationsfassung, Version Konsultation 1.0.; 09.02.2009. http://www.versorgungsleitlinien.de/themen/asthma/pdf/nvl_asthma_lang.pdf [Letzter Zugriff: 27.04.2009].
- 2 Bleecker E R. Similarities and differences in asthma and COPD. The Dutch hypothesis. Chest. 2004; 126 93-95
- 3 Boezen H M, Schouten J P, Postma D S, Rijcken B. Distribution of peak expiratory flow variability by age, gender and smoking habits in a random population sample aged 20 – 70 yrs. Eur Respir J. 1994; 7 1814-1820
- 4 Buhl R, Berdel D, Criee C P. et al .Leitlinie zur Diagnostik und Therapie von Patienten mit Asthma. Deutsche Atemwegsliga und Deutsche Gesellschaft für Pneumologie und Beatmungsmedizin e.V 2006 http://www.atemwegsliga.de/download/asthmaleitlinie.pdf [Letzter Zugriff: 27.04.2009]
- 5 Crapo R O, Casaburi R, Coates A L. et al . Guidelines for methacholine and exercise challenge testing-1999. This official statement of the American Thoracic Society was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, July 1999. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000; 161 309-329
- 6 Dekker F W, Schrier A C, Sterk P J, Dijkman J H. Validity of peak expiratory flow measurement in assessing reversibility of airflow obstruction. Thorax. 1992; 47 162-166
- 7 den O tter JJ, Reijnen G M, van den Bosch W J, van Schayck C P, Molema J, van Weel C. Testing bronchial hyper-responsiveness: provocation or peak expiratory flow variability?. Br J Gen Pract. 1997; 47 487-492
- 8 Enright P L, Burchette R J, Peters J A, Lebowitz M D, McDonnell W F, Abbey D E. Peak flow lability: association with asthma and spirometry in an older cohort. Chest. 1997; 112 895-901
- 9 Enright P L, Lebowitz M D, Cockroft D W. Physiologic measures: pulmonary function tests. Asthma outcome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994; 149 9-18
- 10 Enright P L, McClelland R L, Buist A S, Lebowitz M D. Correlates of peak expiratory flow lability in elderly persons. Chest. 2001; 120 1861-1868
- 11 Gelb A F, Zamel N, Krishnan A. Physiologic similarities and differences between asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2008; 14 24-30
- 12 Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) .Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention 2008 (update). http://www.ginasthma.com/download.asp?intId = 345 [Letzter Zugriff: 27.04.2009]
- 13 Goldstein M F, Veza B A, Dunsky E H, Dvorin D J, Belecanech G A, Haralabatos I C. Comparisons of peak diurnal expiratory flow variation, postbronchodilator FEV(1) responses, and methacholine inhalation challenges in the evaluation of suspected asthma. Chest. 2001; 119 1001-1010
- 14 Kunzli N, Stutz E Z, Perruchoud A P. et al . Peak flow variability in the SAPALDIA study and its validity in screening for asthma-related conditions. The SPALDIA Team. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999; 160 427-434
- 15 Miller M R, Hankinson J, Brusasco V. et al . Standardisation of spirometry. Eur Respir J. 2005; 26 319-338
- 16 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) .Expert Panel Report 3: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma 2007. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/asthma/asthgdln.htm [Letzter Zugriff: 27.04.2009]
- 17 Quackenboss J J, Lebowitz M D, Krzyzanowski M. The normal range of diurnal changes in peak expiratory flow rates. Relationship to symptoms and respiratory disease. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1991; 143 323-330
- 18 Ryan G, Latimer K M, Dolovich J, Hargreave F E. Bronchial responsiveness to histamine: relationship to diurnal variation of peak flow rate, improvement after bronchodilator, and airway calibre. Thorax. 1982; 37 423-429
- 19 Schneider A, Dinant G J, Maag I. et al . The added value of C-reactive protein to clinical signs and symptoms in patients with obstructive airway disease: results of a diagnostic study in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2006; 7 28
- 20 Thiadens H A, De Bock G H, Dekker F W. et al . Value of measuring diurnal peak flow variability in the recognition of asthma: a study in general practice. Eur Respir J. 1998; 12 842-847
- 21 Wilson E B. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc. 1927; 22 209-212
- 22 Zweig M H, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem. 1993; 39 561-577
Prof. Dr. med. Antonius Schneider
Institut für Allgemeinmedizin, Klinikum
rechts der Isar/ Technische Universität München
Wolfgangstr. 8
81667 München
Phone: 089/6146589-11
Fax: 089/6146589-15
Email: antonius.schneider@lrz.tum.de