Methacholine challenge: test-shortening procedures.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Validation of test-shortening procedures for the 2-min tidal breathing methacholine challenge method. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Tertiary-care university clinical pulmonary function laboratory. PATIENTS: One thousand subjects aged 10 to 85 years (mean +/- SD, 44.5 +/- 16.0 years), 44.5% male, referred for methacholine challenge. INTERVENTION: Two-minute tidal breathing methacholine challenge was performed, with both physician and technician access to published test-shortening procedures. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: There were 315 positive test results (provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV(1) [PC(20)] < or = 8 mg/mL) and 685 negative test results. The subjects with positive test results were less likely to be male (39.1 vs 47.5%; p < 0.02) and had lower FEV(1) (91.8 +/- 14.9% predicted vs 97.2 +/- 13.9% predicted; p < 0.001). The average starting PC(20) was between 0.5 mg/mL and 1.0 mg/mL; the most common PC(20) was 1 mg/mL (67%). There were 431 skipped concentrations in 380 subjects. The mean number of methacholine inhalations was 3.7 +/- 1.1 (3.9 +/- 0.1 for negative test results vs 3.3 +/- 1.2 for positive test results; p < 0.001). Eighteen subjects had a > or = 20% FEV(1) fall on the first inhalation, and 11 subjects had a > or = 20% FEV(1) fall after a skipped concentration. In only one case (0.1%) an FEV(1) fall > or = 40% on the first concentration was reported, compared with no cases after a skipped concentration and seven cases with a > or = 40% FEV(1) fall after a routine doubling dose step-up. CONCLUSIONS: The 2-min tidal breathing methacholine test in clinical practice can be safely shortened to an average of less than four inhalations using starting concentrations based on FEV(1), asthma medication, and clinical features, and by occasionally omitting concentrations.

Routine pulse oximetry during methacholine challenges is unnecessary for safety.

BACKGROUND: Methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction is associated with significant hypoxemia, which can be assessed noninvasively by transcutaneous oxygen tension and pulse oximetry. OBJECTIVES: To assess the value of the monitoring of finger pulse oximetry during routine methacholine challenges in a clinical pulmonary function laboratory with regard to both safety and the possibility that a significant fall in oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (SpO(2)) might be a useful surrogate for determining the response to methacholine. METHODS: Two hundred consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic methacholine challenges in the pulmonary function laboratory of a tertiary-care, university-based referral hospital were studied. Methacholine challenges were performed by the standardized 2-min tidal breathing technique, and the DeltaFEV(1) was calculated from the lowest postsaline solution inhalation to the lowest postmethacholine inhalation value. SpO(2) was measured immediately prior to each spirogram, and the DeltaSpO(2) was measured from the lowest postsaline solution inhalation value to the lowest postmethacholine inhalation value. We examined the data for safety (ie, any SpO(2) value < 90). Based on previous reports, we used a DeltaSpO(2) of > or = 3 as significant and looked at the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for DeltaSpO(2) > or = 3 vis-à-vis a fall in FEV(1) of > or = 15%. RESULTS: There were 119 nonresponders (DeltaFEV(1), < 15%) and 81 responders. The baseline FEV(1) percent predicted was slightly but significantly lower in the responders (responders [+/- SD], 91.6 +/- 15%; nonresponders, 96.4 +/- 14%; p < 0.05). DeltaSpO(2) was 3.1 +/- 1.6 in the responders and 1.6 +/- 1.8 in the nonresponders (p < 0. 001). There was a single recording in one patient of SpO(2) < 90 (88). A DeltaSpO(2) > or = 3 had a sensitivity of 68%, a specificity of 73%, a positive predictive value of 63%, and negative predictive value of 77% for a fall in FEV(1) > or = 15%. CONCLUSIONS: Pulse oximetry is not routinely useful for safety monitoring during methacholine challenge. DeltaSpO(2) is not helpful in predicting a positive spirometric response to methacholine. However, the negative predictive value is adequate to allow the DeltaSpO(2) to be used as an adjunct in assessing a negative result of a methacholine test in patients who have difficulty performing spirometry.