Comparison of the ATS versus EU Mini Wright peak flow meter in normal volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) and European Union (EU) have precise and accurate Mini Wright peak flow meters. The purpose of this investigation was to compare both 1) for accuracy using a pneumotachometer, 2) in volunteers to determine whether they are interchangeable, and 3) to spirometrically predicted peak flows. METHODS: Lab testing: A pneumotachometer was connected in series with each peak flow meter and varying flows pushed through both meters for comparison. Human subjects: Nonsmoking adult volunteers did three standing peak flows. The order of peak flow meter used was random. The best of three efforts was used for analysis. The t-test, concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Deming regression, and Bland-Altman plot were the analytic strategies used to determine agreement. Peak flow results were compared to spirometrically predicted values. RESULTS: Fifty-seven volunteers, average age 37 ± 12 years and mean BMI 24.9 ± 2.5 years, were included. The average peak flows were different at 541 ± 114 and 526 ± 112 L/min for the ATS and EU meters, respectively (p < .01). Both peak flow meter values were significantly different than spirometrically predicted values of 483 ± 86 L/min (p < .01). The CCC was 0.98 (0.97-0.99) and regression revealed a slope and y-intercept consistent with 1 and 0, respectively. The Bland-Altman plot revealed no increase in scatter of values over the range of peak flows versus the difference with a mean bias of 15 ± 15 L/min. Laboratory testing revealed that the ATS and EU peak flow meters read 3.0 ± 2.1% above and -2.0 ± 1.5% below the comparison pneumotachometer, respectively. The pneumotachometer comparison was significantly different for both meters at p < .01, paired t-test. CONCLUSIONS: The ATS peak flow meter reads 2.8% higher than the EU peak flow meter across a range of flows. Both meters have similar accuracy with a different bias compared with a pneumotachometer. Finally, both peak flow meters read slightly and significantly higher than spirometrically derived peak flows. Therefore, the peak flow meters are not interchangeable and both may obtain slightly higher values than those determined using current spirometrically derived prediction equations.

The normal difference in bilateral indirect blood pressure recordings in hypertensive individuals.

OBJECTIVE: If there is a significant dichotomy between bilateral systolic blood pressure determinations in both arms in hypertensive individuals, it is often taken as a sign of underlying pathology. The primary objective was to determine what the normal variation might be for a significant difference between blood pressures in both arms. A clinically significant difference was chosen as a systolic blood pressure value greater than 10 mm Hg between the upper extremities, as is commonly quoted at the bedside and in the literature. METHODS: Bilateral indirect blood pressure determinations were obtained in 100 subjects with hypertension in the sitting position. The blood pressure was obtained by two observers, one the recorder and the other who obtained the blood pressure but was blinded to the actual values taken. The order of blood pressure determination in the first arm was determined prior to the study from a table of random numbers. The coefficient of variation in obtaining the blood pressure in each arm was determined in 5 of the 100 subjects. The age, sex, and handedness of each individual were recorded as demographic variables. RESULTS: The average left and right systolic blood pressures were 139 +/- 22 and 141 +/- 22 mm Hg, respectively. The average left and right diastolic blood pressures were 78 +/- 12 and 79 +/- 13 mm Hg, respectively. There was no significant difference between left minus right systolic or diastolic differences (paired t-test). There was no significant difference between systolic or diastolic blood pressures between gender or between left- and right-handed individuals (nonpaired t-test). The average coefficients of variation for taking right and left arm systolic pressures were 2.90% and 1.32%, respectively. Eighteen subjects (18%) had differences in systolic blood pressure between both arms exceeding 10 mm Hg (10% to 26%, 95% confidence interval). CONCLUSIONS: Differences of more than 10 mm Hg in indirect systolic blood pressure recordings between arms are frequent in asymptomatic hypertensive individuals and do not per se indicate any pathologic condition. In the right clinical situation, differences that are noted should be repeated and should be added to the total clinical picture when used to determine whether a pathologic condition is present. Assuming no significant aortic or subclavian disease in the population tested, the specificity of the bilateral blood pressure test was 82%.