Remotely supervised spirometry versus laboratory-based spirometry during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective...

Area of Science:

• Pulmonary Medicine
• Digital Health
• Medical Technology

Background:

• COVID-19 pandemic limited access to traditional spirometry due to infection risks.
• Remotely Supervised Spirometry (RSS) was developed to enable at-home pulmonary function testing.
• RSS utilizes mobile connected spirometers supervised remotely via online communication.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the quality of Remotely Supervised Spirometry (RSS) with conventional Laboratory-based Spirometry (LS).
• To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of RSS in a real-world setting.

Main Methods:

• A retrospective study compared 129 patients undergoing RSS with 113 patients undergoing LS.
• The same spirometry device and technician were used for both groups.
• Patient demographics, including age and sex, were recorded.

Main Results:

• No significant difference in the accuracy of Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) between RSS (78%) and LS (86%).
• No significant difference in the accuracy of Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) between RSS (77%) and LS (82%).
• Overall accuracy for both FEV1 and FVC was comparable between RSS (75%) and LS (81%).

Conclusions:

• Remotely Supervised Spirometry (RSS) provides a quality of testing comparable to Laboratory-based Spirometry (LS).
• RSS is effective across all age groups, including individuals over 65.
• Key benefits include improved access to pulmonary function tests, reduced infection risk, and enhanced patient convenience.