Computerized Respiratory Sounds Are a Reliable Marker in Subjects With COPD.

BACKGROUND: Computerized respiratory sounds have shown potential in monitoring respiratory status in patients with COPD. However, the variability and reliability of this promising marker in COPD are unknown. Therefore, this study assessed the variability and reliability of respiratory sounds at dist...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Respiratory Care Vol. 60; no. 9; pp. 1264 - 1276
Autores principales: Jacome, Cristina, Marques, Alda
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Sep2015
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=109512481&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 109512481
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00201324
        4GG
      jtl: Respiratory Care
      issn: 00201324
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Sep2015
      vid: 60
      iid: 9
      pid: 1365
      pub: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
      place: New Rochelle, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        109512481
        109512481
        109512481
        10.4187/respcare.03922
        NLM25969514
        109512481
      ppf: 1264
      ppct: 12
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
      tig:
        atl: Computerized Respiratory Sounds Are a Reliable Marker in Subjects With COPD.
      aug:
        au:
          Jacome, Cristina
          Marques, Alda
        affil: Lab 3R - Respiratory Research and Rehabilitation Laboratory, School of Health Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
      sug:
        subj:
          Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive Complications
          Respiratory Sounds
          Reliability
          Computers and Computerization
          Monitoring, Physiologic
          Human
          Descriptive Statistics
          Aged
          Forced Expiratory Volume
          Intraclass Correlation Coefficient
          Algorithms
          Spirometry
          Data Analysis Software
          Multicenter Studies
          Post Hoc Analysis
          Repeated Measures
          Analysis of Variance
          Confidence Intervals
          Middle Age
          Male
          Female
          Funding Source
          Aged: 65+ years
          Middle Aged: 45-64 years
          Male
          Female
      ab: BACKGROUND: Computerized respiratory sounds have shown potential in monitoring respiratory status in patients with COPD. However, the variability and reliability of this promising marker in COPD are unknown. Therefore, this study assessed the variability and reliability of respiratory sounds at distinct air flows and standardized anatomic locations in subjects with COPD. METHODS: A 2-part study was conducted. Part 1 assessed the intra-subject reliability of respiratory sounds at spontaneous and target (0.4-0.6 and 0.7-1 L/s) air flows in 13 out-patients (69.3 ± 8.6 y old, FEV\ of 70.9 ± 21.4% of predicted). Part 2 characterized the inter-subject variability and intra-subject reliability of respiratory sounds at each standardized anatomic location, using the most reliable air flow, in a sample of 63 out-patients (67.3 ± 10.4 y old, FEV1 of 75.4 ± 22.9% of predicted). Respiratory sounds were recorded simultaneously at 7 anatomic locations (trachea and right and left anterior, lateral, and posterior chest). Air flow was recorded with a pneumotachograph. Normal respiratory sound intensity and mean number of crackles and wheezes were analyzed with validated algorithms. Inter-subject variability was assessed with the coefficient of variation, and intra-subject reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Relative reliability was moderate to excellent for normal respiratory sound intensity and mean number of crackles (ICC of 0.66-0.89) and excellent for mean number of wheezes (ICC of 0.75-0.99) at the 3 air flows. Absolute reliability was greater at target air flows, especially at 0.4-0.6 L/s. Inter-subject variability was high for all respiratory sound parameters and across locations (coefficient of variation of 0.12-2.22). Respiratory sound parameters had acceptable relative and absolute intra-subject reliability at the different anatomic locations. The only exception was the mean number of crackles at the trachea, for which both relative and absolute reliability were poor. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory sound parameters are more reliable at an air flow of 0.4-0.6 L/s and are reliable overall at all anatomic locations. This should be considered in future studies using computerized auscultation.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N