Posted by John O. on 7/24/2008, 10:33 pm, in reply to "Re: FEV1s throughout the years."
69.129.197.8

The "Ref 2.01" on your report is the amount of air, in liters, that an average person of your age, size and height would exhale in the first second of the test. So the .67 you scored on 4/21 was about 1/3 of that, or 34%. There are different scales used to determine the percentage, as this site lists: http://www.medal.org/visitor/www%5CActive%5Cch8%5Cch8.01%5Cch8.01.01.aspx The confusion between the different methods causes some people to fall back on the liters as a better way to look at it. Obviously a given liter amount is going to be the same no matter what calculations are used to figure the percentage. If all the standards are equally reliable (and FEV1 was the only thing determining how well we function, which it isn't) then since we have the same percentage we should be doing equally well. How I'm doing is: active, O2 more or less 24/7 at 3 to 4 liters for most activity, five hospitalizations in the past 6 years (but only one in the last 2 1/2 years), 4 or 5 other exacerbations in 6 years (requiring antibiotics and prednisone).

 Post a Response

Posted by John O. on 7/24/2008, 12:00 pm, in reply to "Re: FEV1s throughout the years."
69.129.197.8

Conni, on the 4/21 test, you blew .67 of a liter in the first second, which was 34% of what was predicted for an "average" person of your age and size. In 2006, your test had two parts: you blew once, then took a puff of a bronchodilator, probably albuterol, then blew again. So your first score was .59 of a liter, which was 29% of predicted; and .74 after the albuterol, which was 37% of predicted. This represented a 25% improvement on the second try. So from the first to second test, you've improved from 29% to 34% if you use the "pre", meaning pre-bronchodilator figure; but decreased slightly from 37% to 34% if you use the post-bronchodilator number. Since you're two years older now, you get a bit of a break on the percentages. That is, a given liter score counts for more. If you were only 40, for example, you'd be expected to do a lot better, and if you didn't, your "percentage of predicted" would be far lower. As I tried to show with listing my records, these ups and downs by a few points are pretty normal for us, and not worth spending a whole lot of time worrying about. on the basis of the numbers you've given me I'd say you are doing pretty well, relatively speaking. And of course, everyone, not just COPDers, loses a little bit of lung function every year.

 Post a Response

Posted by John O. on 7/24/2008, 6:16 pm, in reply to "Re: FEV1s throughout the years."
69.129.197.8

Carol, I wonder if you've considered something like the Peak Pro, which allows you to check FEV1 at home at any time: http://www.oximetry.ca/en_resp.php

 Post a Response

Posted by CarolCA on 7/24/2008, 6:02 pm, in reply to "Re: FEV1s throughout the years."
67.164.118.40

I don't know what a dsb is but I do feel even though some people feel that diffusion numbers are nor reliable that good diffusion is of extreme importance. It is how well you are using the oxygen you are getting. .50 liters isn't very much so if you are doing well then it must be that something else is keeping you going. Are you on O2? I don't remember. I agree with your Doctor keep up whatever you are doing. What is your DLCO do you know?

 Post a Response

Posted by John O. on 7/23/2008, 10:10 pm, in reply to "Re: FEV1s throughout the years."
69.129.197.8

Chris, thanks for your comments.You know that you and Wes were my role models... Avoidance of infections is my number one priority. A few years ago I quit my membership in a gym which I loved going to, because I suspected that getting near to a bunch of sweating people three times a week was giving me continual exacerbations. Whether coincidence or not I've only had one minor one since. I loved the place, and hated quitting, and spending the bucks to set up a workout room at home. But as they say, considering the alternative...

 Post a Response