Evaluation of Superiority of FEV1/VC Over FEV1/FVC for Classification of Pulmonary Disorders

Document Type : Original Article


1 Pulmonologist,Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School of Islamic Azad University- Mashhad Branch,Lung Disease Research Center, Mashhad, Iran.

2 General practionaire, Zakaria research center, Medical school of Islamic Azad University, Mashhad Branch

3 Pulmonologist, Lung Disease Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical science, Mashhad, Iran.


Introduction: Forced expiratory value in one score  (FEV1)/ Forced vital capacity (FVC) was used in classical literature for primary classifications of pulmonary disorders. American Thoracic Society/ European Respiratory Society guidelines recommended using FEV1/VC instead of FEV1/FVC.The aim of study was determination of the extent of superiority of FEV1/VC over the FEV1/FVC.
Materials and Methods: Two hundred seven subjects whom suffered from different pulmonary disorders were evaluated by standard spirometry, lung volume and Carbon mono-oxide lung diffusion capacity (DLCO). Accuracy of FEV1/VC and FEV1/FVC for diagnosing lung disease was compared by area under the ROC curve, sensitivity and specificity analysis including Kraemer efficiency and likelihood ration methods. Gold standards were diagnosis confirmed by over-all clinical and para-clinical judgment.
Results: Primary classification of FEV1/FVC and FEV1/VC according to gold standards showed that FEV1/FVC detected obstructive and restrictive lung disease better than FEV1/VC. FEV1/FVC was able to detect the obstructive and restrictive lung disease correctly in 61% and 34% and FEV1/VC in 56% and 33% respectively. FEV1/FVC showed 100% agreement with forced expiratory flow (FEF)=25-75%,   and Maximum expiratory flow (MEF)=50% but this agreement for FEV1/VC was 95-96%. Accuracy assessments revealed the superiority of FEV/FVC in the likelihood ratio method. Also, based on the ROC curve and Kraemer’s coefficient, more accurate results were obtained by FEV1/FVC, compared to FEV1/VC.
Conclusion: FEV1/FVC showed marginally higher accuracy for detecting lung disease than FEV1/VC.


1. Hyatt RE, Scanlon PD, Nakamura M. Interpretation of pulmonary function tests: a practical guide. 3rd edition. India: Lasewords Private Limited; 2009, P:5-40.
2. Tiffeneau R, Pinelli A. Air circulant et air captif dans l’exploration de la fonction ventilatoire pulmonaire. Paris Med 1947; 133: 624-631.
3. Brusasco V, Crapo R, Viegi G. Series "ATS/ERS task force : Standardisation of lung function testing; Interpretative strategies for lung function tests. Eur Respir J 2005; 26: 948-968.
4. Cosio M, Ghezzo H, Hogg JC, Corbin R, Loveland M, Dosman J, et al: The relations between structural changes in small airways and pulmonary-function tests.  N Engl J Med  1978; 298:1277-1281.
5. Kraemer HC. Retrospective sampling. Virding A eds. Evaluating medical tests: objective and quantitative guidelines 1992:4-9 Sage Publications Newbury Park. .
6. Brusasco, V,  Pellegrino R,  Rodarte JR. Vital capacities in acute and chronic airway obstruction: dependence on flow and volume histories Eur Respir J 1997 10:6, 1316-1320.
7.D’Urzo AD, Tamari I, Bouchard J, Jhirad R, Jugovic P. A new spirometry interpretation algorithm. Primary Care Respiratory Alliance of Canada approach. Can Fam Physician 2011;57:1148-52.