Browsing by Author "Sousa, C.S."
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Differences between FEV6, FVC and VC at the diagnosis of obstructive ventilatory defectPublication . Sousa, C.S.; Coelho, D.B.; Amorim, P.; Viana, P.; Cruz-Martins, N.; Drummond, M.Introduction: The diagnosis of airway obstruction can be made through FEV1/FVC ratio <0.7 or FEV1/VC ratio < lower limit of normality (LLN). Several authors advocate that FEV1/FEV6 ratio is an alternative to diagnosing obstructive ventilatory defect, while others have determined that the best cut-off for this ratio (best combined sensitivity and specificity) is 0.73. Objective: To evaluate the non-inferiority of FEV1/FEV6 ratio < 0.73 when compared to FEV1/ FVC ratio < 0.7 and FEV1/VC < LLN in diagnosing airway obstruction. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the medical records from patients who underwent spirometry or plethysmography in a university central hospital from June 1st to December 31st, 2018 was carried out. Only medical records which included FEV1/FVC < 0.7 or FEV1/VC < LLN were selected, and these results were compared to FEV1/FEV6 ratio. Results: A total of 526 patients with obstructive ventilatory defect were identified by one of the two ratios described. Of these, 95.1%, 87.4% and 88.6% were obstructive by FEV1/FVC, FEV1/ VC, and FEV1/FEV6 ratio, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of FEV1/FEV6 in relation to FEV1/FVC ratio was 99.6% (p < 0.001) with a diagnostic efficacy of 92.8%, whereas the PPV of FEV1/FEV6 in relation to FEV1/VC was 91.0% (p < 0.001) and diagnostic efficacy was 85.2%. Most false negatives, comparing FEV6 with the other two tests, were found in patients with FEV1 > 70% (mild obstruction) and in individuals aged >50 years. Conclusions: FEV1/FEV6 < 0.73 may be a good alternative ratio, as it is non-inferior to FEV1/VC and FEV1/FVC in diagnosing obstructive ventilatory defect.
- A rare case of pulmonary disease combining alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency and common variable immunodeficiencyPublication . Sousa, C.S.; Teixeira, V.; Pereira, V.; Pinheiro, R.B.; Seixas, S.; Martins, N.
- What do asthmatic patients think about telemedicine visits?Publication . Sousa, C.S.; Trigueiro-Barbosa, Mário; Aguiar, R.; Benito-Garcia, Filipe; Morais-Almeida, MarioIntroduction. Due to the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak and the national emergency state, virtual visits were implemented as an alternative to in-person visits. With this study we aimed to establish asthma patients' general satisfaction with the quality of health care provided by virtual visits (phone or video calls). Materials and methods. A questionnaire (9 questions) was published on the Facebook page of the Portuguese Association of Asthmatics. It was available online for general self-reported asthmatic patients to answer during one month, starting on 11st May 2020. The survey only allowed one answer per registered user. Results. Fifty-five responses were obtained. Patients were satisfied with communication with providers (> 88%); nevertheless, one-half evaluated the virtual visit as inferior when compared to in-person visits. About one third attributed a classification of 6 or less (0-10 scale, 0 being the worst and 10 the best consultation possible), but still most of the patients would either recommend it or use this kind of medical visits in the future, even outside the actual pandemic context. Patients also referred some important limitations, as lack of physical examination and the fact that the medical visit was more impersonal. Only 27% had technical issues accessing virtual visits. Positive aspects were also named, such as virtual visits being practical and avoiding the need to move to the hospital. Discussion and conclusions. Our survey revealed that small changes could further increase patients' satisfaction, adherence and confidence in telemedicine. Although presenting some limitations, virtual visits seem to be generally well accepted by asthmatic patients and it might be a good alternative for in-person visits, at leastin such difficult times when social distancing is recommended.