Physiological predictors of peak inspiRatory flow using Observed lung function results (POROS): evaluation at discharge among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation

David B. Price (Corresponding Author), Sen Yang, Simon Wan Yau Ming, Antony Hardjojo, Claudia Cabrera, Andriana I. Papaioannou, Stelios Loukides, Vicky Kritikos, Sinthia Z. Bosnic-Anticevich, Victoria Carter, Paul M. Dorinsky

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Peak inspiratory flow (PIF) as generated through the resistance of a dry powder inhaler (DPI) device is a critical patient-dependent maneuver impacting the success of DPI medication delivery. Despite its importance, it is not routinely measured in clinical practice. Little is currently known about the relationship, if any, between PIF through DPI devices, routine spirometry and disease outcomes. Aim: The aim of this study was to identify potential predictors of PIF for different DPIs from spirometric parameters and patient characteristics and explore the association between PIF and follow-up events. Patients and methods: A retrospective observational study at discharge among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation at Attikon hospital, Athens, Greece. Spirometry was performed using an Easy on-PC™ spirometer. PIF was measured through four DPI resistances using the In-Check™ DIAL. Regression analyses were used to investigate the association between PIF through resistances and spirometric parameters obtained at discharge, comorbidities and demographic parameters. Results: Forty-seven COPD patients (mean [±SD], age 71 [±9] years, 72% males, 51% current smokers) were included in this study. Overall, 85% and 15% were classified as GOLD (2017) groups D and C, respectively. Most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension (70%) and cardiovascular disease (53%). In the final regression model, higher PIF was significantly associated with the following: higher FEV1 and % predicted peak expiratory flow (PEF) for Turbohaler® (R-squared value 0.374); higher FEV1 and diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) for Aerolizer® (R-squared value 0.209) and higher FEV1, younger age and diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (IHD) for Diskus® (R-squared value 0.350). However, R-squared values for all three devices were weak (<0.4). Conclusion: The study did not provide evidence to support the use of surrogate measurements for PIF through device resistance, which could assist in determining the appropriateness of inhaler device type. Although PIF measurement is feasible in patients at discharge and could be a valuable addition to the standard of care in COPD management, it needs to be measured directly.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3937—3946
Number of pages10
JournalInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Volume13
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 13 Dec 2018

Keywords

  • hospital admission
  • COPD
  • dry powder inhaler devices
  • inhaler technique
  • resistance
  • spirometry

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Physiological predictors of peak inspiRatory flow using Observed lung function results (POROS): evaluation at discharge among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this