Impulse oscillometry in acute and stable asthmatic children: a comparison with spirometry

Abstract

Objective: Lung function tests have attracted interest for the diagnosis and follow-up of childhood asthma in recent years. For patients who cannot perform forced expiratory maneuvers, impulse oscillometry (IOS), performed during spontaneous breathing, may be an alternative tool. Methods: Thirty-five acute, 107 stable asthmatic and 103 healthy children who presented to our clinic performed IOS followed by spirometry before and after salbutamol inhalation. The mean baseline and reversibility of IOS and spirometry parameters were compared between the groups. Correlation analyses were undertaken within the asthmatics, and the healthy controls separately. To distinguish the three groups, the sensitivity and specificity of baseline and reversibility values of IOS and spirometry were computed. When spirometry was taken as the gold standard, the discriminating performance of IOS to detect the airway obstruction and reversibility was investigated. Results: The mean absolute values of Zrs, R5, R5−R20, X5, X10, X15, Fres, AX, and all spirometric parameters, and the mean reversibility values of R5, R10, Fres, AX and forced expiratory volume in one second were different between the groups and the highest area under curve values to discriminate the groups was obtained from area of reactance (AX) and ΔAX. Zrs, all resistance (including R5−R20) and reactance parameters, Fres and AX were correlated with at least one spirometric parameter. Spirometric reversibility was detected by ≤−22.34 and ≤−39.05 cut-off values of ΔR5 and ΔAX, respectively. Conclusions: IOS has shown a highly significant association with spirometric indices and reversibility testing. It may be a substitute for spirometry in children who fail to perform forced expiratory maneuvers.

• Childhood
• impulse oscillometry
• reversibility
• spirometry

Declaration of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. S.B.B., S.K. designed the study and wrote the manuscript. T.A., Ö.T., A.A. contributed to data collection. S.B.B. and S.K. performed the statistical analysis and interpretation of the results. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. This study received no funds from any agency.

Supplementary material available online