Evaluation of the Air Next spirometer in paediatric cystic fibrosis patients

Abstract

<b>Introduction:</b> In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in demand for spirometry testing outside of hospital environments. The Air Next spirometer allows for spirometry testing in the home environment but there is little data on its usefulness for patient remote management. <b>Aim:</b> To compare the Air Next Spirometer and the hospital Micromedical spirometer measurements in paediatric cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. <b>Methods:</b> 25 patients performed a spirometry test on the Air Next device and on the hospital Micromedical device at Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester. A trained physiologist assisted. Mean percentage difference in values and a Pearson correlation was calculated for FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second), FVC (forced vital capacity) and PEF (peak expiratory flow) between both devices. <b>Results:</b> There was a significant correlation (r, p) between FEV1 (0.993, &lt;0.001), FVC (0.994, &lt;0.001) and PEF (0.936, &lt;0.001) measurements when performed on the Air Next and Micromedical device. The mean percentage difference (S.D.) in FEV1, FVC and P.E. was 2.82% (5.83), 4.38% (4.80) and 7.64% (17.92) respectively. In 12 (44%) patients, the FVC was &gt;5% greater when measured on the Air Next spirometer. In 2 (8%) patients, the FVC was &gt;10% when measured on the Air Next spirometer. There was no &gt;5% differences in FEV1 (range: 1.12-4.38%). <b>Conclusion:</b> There was good agreement between the Air Next and the Micromedical spirometers for FEV1. For FVC, the agreement was less; with nearly half of patients showing &gt;5% greater FVC when tested with the Air Next spirometer. This has potential implications for the FEV1/FVC ratio resulting in an overestimation of airways obstruction.