Diagnostic Accuracy of Tidal Breathing Patterns in Assessing Airflow Obstruction Compared with Spirometry.
5 affiliations
- 1Department of Research and Development, Ciro, Horn, The Netherlands.
- 2NUTRIM Institute of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
- 3Engineering Fluid Dynamics, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
- 4AMES BV, Enschede, The Netherlands.
- 5Department of Respiratory Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Purpose
Spirometry is the standard for assessing airflow obstruction in COPD, but low-burden screening tools may support primary care in identifying patients needing referral, potentially enabling earlier diagnosis and timely disease management. A novel, easy-to-use device (AMES BV, the Netherlands) estimates obstruction from nasal pressure variation during tidal breathing and may support referral decisions. This study aimed to assess the ability of nasal pressure analysis to identify airflow obstruction compared with spirometry.Patients and methods
Cross-sectional study at a hospital pulmonary function laboratory. In a convenience sample of participants referred for routine spirometry, nasal pressure variation was measured via a nasal cannula and converted into an obstruction index, expressed as an estimated Forced Expiratory Volume in the first second/Forced Vital Capacity ratio (FEV₁/FVC). The ability to identify spirometry-derived obstruction (FEV₁/FVC<0.70) was assessed by sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, with spirometry as reference standard. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between the estimated FEV₁/FVC ratio (derived from nasal pressure variation) and spirometry-defined FEV₁/FVC ratio.Results
Both procedures were performed in 192 participants (median age 66 (IQR 56-74) yrs; 39% male). Nasal pressure analysis showed moderate performance in detecting obstruction (sensitivity 66%, specificity 63%, accuracy 64%). The Bland-Altman plot showed variability between both measurements, consistent with moderate classification performance, with a mean difference of -0.016 and 95% limits of agreement ranging from -0.43 to 0.40.Conclusion
Nasal pressure analysis showed moderate performance in detecting spirometry-defined airway obstruction, suggesting limited potential as a non-invasive tool. Further research is needed to establish its possible clinical utility.
Related
- Accuracy and reproducibility of a large language model in assessing spirometry test acceptability and interpretation: a performance study.
- Diagnostic Performance of Corrected Carotid Flow Time for Assessing Fluid Responsiveness in Patients With Septic or Hypovolemic Shock: A Prospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study
- Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-based imaging modalities for assessing residual axillary lymph node disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Assessing diagnostic accuracy of onchocerciasis rapid diagnostic tests using Bayesian latent class models
- Diagnostic adequacy of COPD in primary care: a population-based analysis of spirometry use and risk-factor documentation
BibTeX
@article{dorssers2026diagnostic,
title = {{Diagnostic Accuracy of Tidal Breathing Patterns in Assessing Airflow Obstruction Compared with Spirometry.}},
author = {Britt J M H Dörssers and Anouk W Vaes and Rob Hagmeijer and Manon H J M Broekhuijsen-Godding and Frits M E Franssen and Dennis S van Putten and Martijn A Spruit and Sami O Simons},
journal = {International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.2147/copd.s634862},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42960165},
note = {CC BY-NC},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Diagnostic Accuracy of Tidal Breathing Patterns in Assessing Airflow Obstruction Compared with Spirometry.
AU - Britt J M H Dörssers
AU - Anouk W Vaes
AU - Rob Hagmeijer
AU - Manon H J M Broekhuijsen-Godding
AU - Frits M E Franssen
AU - Dennis S van Putten
AU - Martijn A Spruit
AU - Sami O Simons
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/25
JO - International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
DO - 10.2147/copd.s634862
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42960165
AB - Purpose Spirometry is the standard for assessing airflow obstruction in COPD, but low-burden screening tools may support primary care in identifying patients needing referral, potentially enabling earlier diagnosis and timely disease management. A novel, easy-to-use device (AMES BV, the Netherlands) estimates obstruction from nasal pressure variation during tidal breathing and may support referral decisions. This study aimed to assess the ability of nasal pressure analysis to identify airflow obstruction compared with spirometry.Patients and methods Cross-sectional study at a hospital pulmonary function laboratory. In a convenience sample of participants referred for routine spirometry, nasal pressure variation was measured via a nasal cannula and converted into an obstruction index, expressed as an estimated Forced Expiratory Volume in the first second/Forced Vital Capacity ratio (FEV₁/FVC). The ability to identify spirometry-derived obstruction (FEV₁/FVC<0.70) was assessed by sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, with spirometry as reference standard. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between the estimated FEV₁/FVC ratio (derived from nasal pressure variation) and spirometry-defined FEV₁/FVC ratio.Results Both procedures were performed in 192 participants (median age 66 (IQR 56-74) yrs; 39% male). Nasal pressure analysis showed moderate performance in detecting obstruction (sensitivity 66%, specificity 63%, accuracy 64%). The Bland-Altman plot showed variability between both measurements, consistent with moderate classification performance, with a mean difference of -0.016 and 95% limits of agreement ranging from -0.43 to 0.40.Conclusion Nasal pressure analysis showed moderate performance in detecting spirometry-defined airway obstruction, suggesting limited potential as a non-invasive tool. Further research is needed to establish its possible clinical utility.
SN - 1176-9106
SN - 1178-2005
ER -