Objective: To evaluate the use of the forced expiratory volume in one second/forced expiratory volume in six seconds (FEV1/FEV6) ratio as an alternative to the FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio in the detection of mild airway obstruction. Methods: Reference equations for the Brazilian population in 2006 were used in order to determine the lower limits of normality for the FEV1/FEV6 and FEV1/FVC ratios. The spirometry findings of 155 patients from 20 to 84 years of age were analyzed. All of the patients presented the following: a < 15% difference between predicted and observed FEV1/FVC ratio; an FEV1 ≥ 60% of predicted; and an exhalation time of at least 6 s. The Brazilian Thoracic Society criteria for acceptability and reproducibility in spirometry were met. Results: Mean values (± SD) for FEV1/FEV6 and FEV1/FVC were 73 ± 4% and 75 ± 3%, respectively. Using the FEV1/FVC ratio, we identified airflow obstruction in 61 patients, compared with only 46 patients when we used the FEV1/FEV6 ratio, showing a sensitivity of 75% (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The FEV1/FEV6 ratio has poor sensitivity and should not be used to replace the FEV1/FVC ratio in the diagnosis of mild airway obstruction.

Keywords: Forced expiratory volume; Vital capacity; Airway obstruction; Spirometry; Respiratory function tests.

Objective: To establish the upper limits for changes in FEV1, slow vital capacity (SVC), FVC, and inspiratory capacity (IC) after placebo administration in patients with airflow obstruction. Methods: One hundred and two adults with airflow obstruction (FEV1 = 62 ± 19% of predicted) were included in the study. All of the participants performed SVC and FVC maneuvers before and after the administration of placebo spray. The changes in FEV1, SVC, FVC, and IC were expressed as absolute values, percentage of change from baseline values, and percentage of predicted values, 95% CIs and 95th percentiles being calculated. Factor analysis was performed in order to determine how those changes clustered. Results: Considering the 95% CIs and 95th percentiles and after rounding the values, we found that the upper limits for a significant response were as follows: FEV1 = 0.20 L, FVC = 0.20 L, SVC = 0.25 L, and IC = 0.30 L (expressed as absolute values); FEV1 = 12%, FVC = 7%, SVC = 10%, and IC = 15% (expressed as percentage of change from baseline values); and FEV1 = 7%, FVC = 6%, SVC = 7%, and IC = 12% (expressed as percentage of predicted values). Conclusions: In patients with airflow obstruction, IC varies more widely than do FVC and SVC. For IC, values greater than 0.30 L and 15% of change from the baseline value can be considered significant. For FVC, values greater than 0.20 L and 7% of change from the baseline value are significant. Alternatively, changes exceeding 0.20 L and 7% of the predicted value can be considered significant for FEV1 and FVC. On factor analysis, spirometric parameters clustered into three dimensions, expressing changes in flows, volumes, and dynamic hyperinflation.

Keywords: Respiratory function tests; Spirometry; Bronchospirometry.