Tracheal wheezes during methacholine airway challenge (MAC) in workers exposed to occupational hazards

• Published in: Respiratory medicine Vol. 88; no. 8; p. 581
• Main Authors: Bohadana, A B, Massin, N, Teculescu, D, Peslin, R
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01-09-1994
• Subjects: Adult; Asthma - physiopathology; Auscultation; Bronchial Hyperreactivity - diagnosis; Bronchial Hyperreactivity - physiopathology; Bronchial Provocation Tests; Dust - adverse effects; Forced Expiratory Volume - drug effects; Humans; Male; Methacholine Chloride; Occupational Diseases - diagnosis; Occupational Diseases - physiopathology; Predictive Value of Tests; Respiratory Sounds - diagnosis; Respiratory Sounds - physiopathology; Sensitivity and Specificity; Spirometry; Tracheal Diseases - diagnosis; Tracheal Diseases - physiopathology
• DOI: 10.1016/S0954-6111(05)80005-8
• ISSN: 0954-6111

Methacholine airway challenge (MAC) is a simple and useful means to assess bronchial hyperreactivity in workers exposed to various occupational hazards. Recently, wheeze detection by tracheal auscultation has been proposed as an indicator of bronchial responsiveness during bronchial provocation test in children. Our aim was to examine the relationship between the appearance of wheezes and the concurrent changes in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) observed during MAC test in adults. Three cumulative doses of a methacholine solution (100 micrograms, 500 micrograms and 1500 micrograms) were inhaled by 45 workers with occupational exposure to flour dust. Spirometry was done using an electronic spirometer. Tracheal sounds were recorded with an electronic stethoscope placed over the anterior cervical triangle, 2 cm above the sternal notch. The amplified sounds were stored on magnetic tape, band-pass filtered (50-2000 Hz), and digitized at a sampling rate of 4096 Hz into a GenRad Vibration Control System. Wheezes were detected by fast Fourier transform (FFT) analysis and their presence compared to a 20% fall in FEV1. A positive MAC test by spirometry was found in 12 subjects whereas wheezes were identified in 14 subjects. Among the wheezing subjects, nine had a positive MAC test (range of fall in FEV1 = 20.6 to 42.3%) and five had a negative one (range of fall in FEV1 = 3.6 to 16.9%). Moreover, no wheezes were found in the remaining three subjects with a positive MAC test (range of fall in FEV1 = 20.7 to 27.4%). Taking a 20% fall in FEV1 as reference, wheezes were 75% sensitive and 84.8% specific to detect airflow obstruction. In conclusion, since it carries a significant although small false-negative rate, the acoustic technique based upon wheeze detection cannot, at the present time, fully replace spirometry during airway challenge testing in subjects with suspected asthma.