Sex-specific reference equations for respiratory impedance were developed based on large-scale data from healthy Chinese adults from a wide region in a multicenter IOS study.
Contributors to the respiratory impedance
As pulmonary function is associated with physiological changes during growth and aging, reference equations of pulmonary function commonly include anthropometric variables such as sex, age, height and weight, in order to justify the contributory effects of these factors to lung function. Our study found that height was the most influential contributor to respiratory impedance measured with IOS, with that taller individuals had higher R and less negative X. This finding is consistent with the previous studies [11–17, 19, 21, 26]. As shown in Table 3, though the coefficients or forms of the predictors in the IOS equations were different, the tendency of the effect of predictors in most equations remained the same; that is, height was negatively correlated with R5 and R20, and positively correlated with X5. The association between height and respiratory resistance can be explained by the effect that height contributes to the diameter of the airways and lung volume. This could also explain the discrepancies of respiratory impedance between males and females. In contrast, weight displayed a positive association with R. The decreased lung volume and ventilation heterogeneity reported in the obese subjects [27, 28] may account for the higher respiratory resistance in the obese. However, the mechanism behind how body weight affects respiratory impedance in subjects with normal weight is still not clear since most studies have focused on overweight or obese individuals. Although age did not appear to be a marked contributor to R in adults in our study, a negative dependence on age for R has been reported in studies of children and adolescences [29, 30]. Thus, the effect of age on R may be related to the rapid physiological changes during growth, especially on the growth of the respiratory system in children and adolescences.
Table 3
Summary of the reference equations of IOS indices for adults
Equations | Area | N | F/M | Age range (years) | Ethnicity | Predictors |
| R5 | R20 | X5 | fres |
Present study | China | 567 | 1.10 | 18–82 | 99.3% Han | M | -H, W | -H, W | H, A | -H, W |
F | -H, W, -A | -H, | H, A | -H, W |
Vogel et al. [9], 1994 | Germany | 506 | 0.70 | 18–69 | NA | M | A | A | -A | NA |
F | A | A | -A | NA |
Zhao et al. [11], 2002 | Xinjiang, China | 457 | 0.80 | 16–81 | Han, Uygur | M | W, -H | W, -H, -A | H | W, -H |
F | W, -H | -H, -A | H, W | W, -H |
Fan et al. [12], 2005 | Kunming, China | 185 | 0.73 | 19–68 | NA | M | -W *H | -W *H | NA | -eH |
F | -eW | -eW | NA | -LogH, LogW |
Satomi et al. [13], 2005 | Japan | 166 | 1.40 | 20–83 | NA | | -LogH | -LogH | LogH, -A | |
Ni et al. [14], 2006 | Nantong, China | 120 | 0.69 | 20–79 | Han | M | -H, W, A | -H, W, A | H, W, A | H, W, A |
F | H, W, A | H, W, -A | H, W, A | H, W, A |
Newbury et al. [15], 2008 | Australia | 125 | 1.12 | 25–74 | Caucasian | M | -H, W, -A | -H, W, -A | H, A | NA |
F | -H, A | -H, A | H, -A | NA |
Wang et al. [16], 2011 | Shenyang, China | 100 | 0.69 | 19–80 | NA | M | -lgH, -lgA | -H2, -eA | -A2 | A2 |
| | | | F | -lgH | -H2 | H2, -eA | -lgH, A*W |
Li et al. [26], 2012 | Lanzhou, China | 920 | 1.04 | > 18 | NA | M | -lgH, W | -H, W | -A2 | -H, W |
F | -H, W | W | -A2 | -H, W |
Schulz et al. [18], 2013 | Germany | 397 | 1.58 | 45–85 | Caucasian | M | -H, W, -A | -H, W, -A | H, -W, -A | -H, W, A |
| | | | F | -H, W, -A | -H, W, -A | H, -W, -A | -H, W, A |
Zhang et al. [19], 2015 | Macau, China | 362 | 1.02 | 18–78 | Han | M | W, -H | -H | H | A, -H |
| | | | F | CW, -W, A | -H | H, A | A, CW, -W |
Shu et al. [20], 2016 | Jianghan Plain, China | 431 | 1.03 | 18–79 | NA | M | -AH, A, -A2, eW, -eA | -AH, A, -A2, -lgA | A*H, -A | -H2, W2 |
| | | | F | -H2, W, -eW | W, -H2 | H2 | W, -H2, -eW |
N: the number of the study sample; F/M: ratio of female subjects to male subjects; R5: resistance at 5 Hz; R20: resistance at 20 Hz; X5: reactance at 5 Hz; fres: resonant frequency; NA: information was not available in the published paper; H, W, A respectively indicate height, weight and age as predictors of the equations, “-” indicates a negative effect of the predictor. M: equations for males; F: equations for female. |
Table 3 (See the end of the document text file)
Reference equations of respiratory impedance with IOS
Figure 3 displays the comparisons of reference values of R5 and X5 produced by different IOS reference equations. Since age is shown to have little impact on respiratory impedance in adults, it is no surprise that marked differences of predictive values were found between the Vogel’s equations and the equations from other three representative studies (Newbury et al. [15], Schulz et al. [18] and the present study), as age is the only predictor in Vogel’s equations [9]. Given that many lung function laboratories are still using Vogel’s equations, it is important for the physicians to note that Vogel’s equations predict higher R5 and X5 than other equations, especially for X5, and the differences are greater in tall subjects for R5 and in short subjects for X5. Undoubtedly, developing a more appropriate equation is imperative.
As summarized in Table 3, since Vogel’s equations were developed, 10 studies have developed new equations of IOS indices in adults, and 7 of these were from China. However, most of these studies have limitations such as lack of quality control of IOS data or small sample sizes (Fan et al. [12], Satomi et al. [13], Newbury et al. [15], Ni et al. [14], Wang et al. [16]). Among these studies, only 6 studies had mentioned the number of IOS measurements for each subject, only 4 studies (Wang et al. [16], Schulz et al. [18], Zhang et al. [19], Shu et al. [20]) had mentioned the requirements of repeatability, and 3 studies (Satomi et al. [13], Newbury et al. [15], Schulz et al. [18]) had mentioned the acceptable criteria for the IOS measurements. As the variations of IOS indices are greater than spirometric indices [31], multiple measurements and strict quality control are particularly important in IOS measurements to ensure the repeatability and reliability of the data. Regarding sample size, studies from Satomi et al. [13] and Newbury et al. [15] were based on small sample sizes, with 166 and 125 subjects, respectively. This may decrease the reliability and applicability of their equations as a study have shown that at least 150 males and 150 females are required to validate reference equations of lung function tests in individual laboratories [32]. Also, Satomi’s equation did not take sex into account, whereas sex-related differences in IOS indices have been reported in the present and former studies [21]. Schulz’s study [18] was based on data from a relatively large sample size and clear quality control criteria. Similar values of R5 and X5 produced by Schulz’s study and the present study in Fig. 3 provide evidence of the reliability of our reference equations.
Although 7 studies from China have developed reference equations of IOS indices [11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 26] (Table 3), all of these studies were based on local sample populations, which may be less representative of the whole population of China, as China is a country with large territory and population. Heterogeneity in the inclusion criteria of participants and quality control also hinder the integration of these databases. Our study was a multicenter study that included data from a wide region across China, with uniform inclusion criteria and standardized quality control. Therefore, this study is more representative of the general population and produced more reliable data.
Normal ranges of IOS indices
Despites the fact that ERS had published official recommendations for the application of FOT in the clinical practice [22],[33], there are no acknowledged criteria for the normal ranges of respiratory impedance with FOT or IOS, probably due to the lack of systematic studies concerning on normative values of respiratory impedance. The IOS equipment manufacturer recommends using 150% of the predicted value as the normal limit for R5 and R20, and predicted value minus 0.2 kPa·s·L− 1 as the normal limit of X5. The former was derived from reports from a bronchial challenge showing that a 20% decrease in FEV1 was comparable to a 50% increase in airway resistance [1]. However, ATS guidelines for pulmonary function tests reported in 2017 have recommended using LLN/ULN as the criteria of abnormal of pulmonary function [10]. As is shown in Fig. 4, predicted X5 minus 0.2 kPa·s·L− 1 (X5P–0.2 kPa·s·L− 1) was significantly more negative than the LLN of X5, regardless of the equation used. The 150% of predicted R5 (150%R5P) was much higher than the ULN of R5 produced by our equations, and marked differences were also shown in the comparison of ULN of R5 and 150%R5P produced by Newbury’ equations in males and Schulz’s equations in females. The above differences between the ULN/LLN and the normal limits currently used in laboratories will apparently increase the risk of misdiagnosis. Under the increasing application of IOS in clinical practice, it is necessary to update new equations and normal ranges of IOS. The validation of our new equations and normal ranges of IOS in patients with respiratory diseases will be further analyzed and discussed in our later reports.
Limitations
There were limitations to the present study. First, due to the practical limitations, our study population was not a random sample and may be less representative of the whole healthy population. Nevertheless, multicenter sources of data and strict inclusive criteria for healthy subjects in this study provide a guarantee of the representativeness of a healthy population. To date, our equations are the most representative and reliable for healthy Chinese adults. Second, our equations are based on the data of Chinese population, its use in other populations or ethnicities may be limited. However, we believe that these data may be a foundation or promotion to the development of multiethnic reference equations of IOS in the future, and our findings about the inappropriateness of the current normal ranges of IOS indices may provide evidences for the update of the internationally technical standards. Third, as the IOS data from children and adolescents in multicenter study of impulse oscillometry in Chinese were not enough to develop reference equations, we failed to develop continuous reference equations with a full age range. Studies containing a larger number of healthy children and adolescents with a randomized sample are needed in the future.