Journal Information
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
487
Original Article
Full text access
Available online 3 January 2025
Association of Forced Expiratory Volume in 0.5s With All-Cause Mortality Risk in Adults
Visits
487
Fan Wua,b,1,
Corresponding author
wu.fan@vip.163.com

Corresponding authors.
, Juncheng Liangc,1, Ranxi Pengd,1, Jie Oue,1, Shiyu Zhangf, Leheng Tangf, Qiaorui Zhouf, Siman Liaoc, Yingtong Chenf, Xiaozi Guoc, Jingxian Chenc, Qi Wana, Zihui Wanga, Zhishan Denga, Yumin Zhoua,b,
Corresponding author
zhouyumin410@126.com

Corresponding authors.
a State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease & National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease & National Center for Respiratory Medicine & Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
b Guangzhou National Laboratory, Guangzhou, China
c The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
d The Third School of Clinical Medicine, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
e State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Chest Hospital, Guangzhou, China
f The First School of Clinical Medicine, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
Highlights

  • This study aims to investigate the associations between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality in adults.

  • Overall, 25,357 individuals were included, with a median follow-up of 308 months. A reduction in FEV0.5 was associated with an increased all-cause mortality risk. The results were maintained in subgroups analyses.

  • A non-linear relationship was observed between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality risk.

This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (4)
Show moreShow less
Tables (3)
Table 1. Baseline Characteristic of Participants Included in This Study.
Table 2. Associations Between Pre-Bronchodilator Forced Expiratory Volume in 0.5s and Risk of All-Cause Mortality.
Table 3. Association Between Comorbidity and Chronic Respiratory Symptoms and Pre-Bronchodilator Forced Expiratory Volume in 0.5s.
Show moreShow less
Additional material (1)
Abstract
Introduction

Previous studies have proposed forced expiratory volume in 0.5s (FEV0.5) to determine health outcomes in infants and young children, but few studies exist in adults. This study aims to investigate the associations between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality in adults.

Methods

Participants were enrolled from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (1988–1994 [NHANES III] and 2007–2012 cycles). Participants aged20 years, not pregnant with qualifying prebronchodilator FEV0.5 data, acceptable spirometry, complete body measurements, and follow-up data for mortality were included. The association between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality risk was evaluated by multivariable Cox regression. Restricted cubic spline analysis was used to evaluate the non-linear relationship between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality. Subgroup analyses were conducted with stratification by sex, age, body mass index, smoking status, and race.

Results

Overall, 25,357 individuals were included, with a median follow-up of 308 months. The mean±standard deviation age was 46.1±7.2 years, and the mean prebronchodilator FEV0.5 was 2412±699mL. A reduction in FEV0.5 was associated with an increased all-cause mortality risk. A non-linear relationship was observed between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality risk. The results were maintained in subgroups analyses.

Conclusion

FEV0.5 was inversely associated with all-cause mortality risk in adults, indicating its potential for monitoring respiratory health.

Keywords:
Forced expiratory volume in 0.5s
Respiratory health outcome
Adult
All-cause mortality
Graphical abstract
Full Text
Introduction

Pulmonary function testing is non-invasive and is a useful method to evaluate respiratory diseases. Pulmonary function test results include forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC), which are important for diagnosing respiratory diseases, as well as for identifying the subtype, severity, and nature of the respiratory disease. Evidence suggests that individuals with below-average FEV1 but still within the normal range have a higher risk of mortality than those with a higher FEV1. Therefore, relying on the assumption that an individual's FEV1 falls within the normal range to predict health outcomes may inadvertently exclude some at-risk individuals. The same conclusion was reached in previous studies on FVC.1–3 The existing literature does not adequately address the question of how observed changes in FVC in a single patient can inform clinical decision making.4 Therefore, it is imperative to identify supplementary indicators to achieve a more precise assessment of respiratory health outcomes.

The published literature predominantly describes the respiratory health of preschool children due to the physiological constraint that infants and preschoolers typically exhale within a duration of 1s. Consequently, forced expiratory volume in 0.5s (FEV0.5) has emerged as a potentially precise indicator within this demographic. Several studies have demonstrated a noteworthy correlation between FEV0.5 and respiratory health in preschool children, thus affirming its utility as a pivotal marker for lung function assessment.5,6 The insights obtained from these investigations offer valuable perspectives on the spectrum of lung diseases in infants and young children, the efficacy of therapeutic interventions, and the dynamics of disease progression. Nonetheless, the understanding of the associations between FEV0.5 and respiratory health outcomes in adults requires improvement. Understanding the associations between FEV0.5 and respiratory health outcomes in adults has important implications for monitoring respiratory health prognosis in this population.

In this study, we aim to elucidate the associations between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality, comorbidities, and chronic respiratory symptoms. The analysis is based on a substantial sample of representative US civilians.

MethodsStudy Design and Population

We utilized data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a collaborative effort spearheaded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Centers for Health Statistics (NCHS) in the US. Ethical approval for the NHANES protocol was duly obtained from the Research Ethics Review Board of the NCHS, and all participants provided written informed consent. Our dataset, which was sourced from the NHANES website (www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/), spans the 1988–1994 (NHANES III) and 2007–2012 cycles due to the availability of FEV0.5 data and the fact that these cycles encompassed a comprehensive array of demographic, examination, and questionnaire data.

This study included all baseline data from the participants who had complete data on FEV0.5. The main inclusion criteria were (1) age20 years; (2) non-pregnant; (3) acceptable spirometry; (4) qualifying FEV0.5 data; (5) complete demographic data and information on smoking status; and (6) complete follow-up data for all-cause mortality.

Lung Function Assessment

The majority of the participants in the NHANES III and NHANES 2007–2012 completed prebronchodilator pulmonary function measurements, while only a small number completed postbronchodilator pulmonary function measurements. Therefore, this study was based on an analysis of the prebronchodilator spirometry data. All pulmonary function measurements were obtained using the Ohio 822/827 Dry Rolled Volume Sealed Spirometer. In the NHANES study, spirometry was performed in accordance with previously recommended guidelines of the American Thoracic Society (ATS).

Stringent quality control measures were applied, necessitating the exclusion of participants who failed to meet the pulmonary function testing criteria. In the NHANES III (1988–1994), individuals with reproducible FEV1 and FVC measurements with ≥2 acceptable trials were included.7 In the NHANES 2007–2012, individuals with FEV1 and FVC that were considered to be of grade A (exceeding the ATS data collection standards) or grade B (meeting the ATS data collection standards) in terms of quality were included.8–10 Lower limit of normal (LLN) for FEV1 and FVC is calculated using the GLI online calculator with a race-neutral approach.11,12

All participants were systematically stratified into four quartiles based on their prebronchodilator FEV0.5 values, designated as group I (0mL to <1937mL), group II (≥1937mL to <2388mL), group III (≥2388mL to <2884mL), and group IV (≥2884mL).

Outcome

The primary outcome was the all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were the risks of comorbidities and chronic respiratory symptoms. The all-cause mortality data were obtained from the comprehensive death certificate records of the National Death Index (NDI) of the NCHS. Information regarding comorbidities and chronic respiratory symptoms was gathered from the questionnaire data on the same date as the pulmonary function tests. This involved inquiring with the patients as to whether they had ever been informed that they had comorbidities by a medical professional, including a doctor or another healthcare provider. Data on chronic respiratory symptoms were gathered via patient self-reporting, wherein the participants were questioned about whether they had experienced cough, cold, sputum production, runny nose, or any other respiratory illness.13–15

Covariate Definitions

Information on various demographic and health-related factors was gathered on the same date as the pulmonary function tests, including age, sex, race, smoking status, educational level and poverty income ratio from the NHANES household interviews. BMI was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared and grouped into four categories: underweight (<18.5kg/m2), normal (≥18.5kg/m2 to <25kg/m2), overweight (≥25.0kg/m2 to <30.0kg/m2), and obese (≥30.0kg/m2). Body surface area (BSA) was calculated using the following formula: BSA (m2)=(body weight [kg])0.425×(height [cm])0.725×0.007184.16 Race was categorized as Mexican–American, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, or other race. Educational level was categorized as Less than 9th grade, 9–12th grade or above 12th grade. Poverty income ratio (PIR) was categorized as low-income (PIR<1.3), middle-income (3.50>PIR1.30) or high-income (PIR3.50). The criteria for classifying smoking status are as follows: “Have you smoked at least 100 cigarettes in your entire life?”, participants who answered “No” were classified as “never smokers.” Those who answered “Yes” were identified as smokers, and based on their answer to the question, “Do you smoke cigarettes now?”, they were classified as “current smokers” (“Yes”) or “former smokers” (“No”).

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were compared between the groups by analysis of variance, while categorical variables were compared using Pearson's Chi-square test. The multivariable logistic regression model was used to estimate the association of FEV0.5 with the presence of comorbidities and the presence of chronic respiratory symptoms. Trends in these associations were calculated using quartiles as quasi-continuous variables in the multivariable logistic regression model.

Kaplan–Meier survival analyses were performed to identify differences in all-cause mortality between the groups. The multivariable Cox regression models were used to estimate the association between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality risk. The proportional-hazards assumption was checked graphically using the Schoenfeld residual test. To further understand the association between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality, we performed Cox proportional-hazards regression analyses with restricted cubic spline (RCS) analysis utilizing five knots. The trend in the association between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality risk was calculated using quartiles as quasi-continuous variables in the multivariable Cox regression model.

Subgroup analyses were also performed to evaluate the impact of FEV0.5 on all-cause mortality across various subgroups stratified by age (20–40, 41–60, and 61–80 years), sex, race (Mexican–American, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, other race), BMI (underweight, normal, overweight, obese), and smoking status (never smoker, former smoker, current smoker). To verify whether FEV0.5 adds prognostic value beyond FEV1 and FVC, we repeated the analysis in the subgroups with FEV1LLN, FVCLLN, and both FEV1 and FVCLLN. In cases of missing data, we used a deletion measure and abstained from using data interpolation. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant for all tests. R Studio, version 4.3.3, and SPSS, version 29.0, were used to conduct the statistical analyses.

ResultsBaseline Characteristics of the Study Participants

Of the 50,492 participants from the NHANES III (n=20,050) and NHANES 2007–2012 (n=30,442), 25,357 were included in the present analysis after applying the eligibility criteria. Reasons for exclusion are shown in Fig. S1. The baseline characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. The median follow-up time was 308 months. The mean age was 46.1±7.2 years, and the mean BMI was 28.0±6.3kg/m2. Fig. S2 illustrates the FEV0.5 distribution at baseline. The mean FEV0.5 was 2412±699mL, with a median (interquartile range) FEV0.5 of 2388 (1937–2884) mL. There were 6352 participants in group I, 6339 in group II, 6328 in group III, and 6338 in group IV. Compared with individuals in groups II, III, and IV, individuals in group I tended to be older and have higher BMI.

Table 1.

Baseline Characteristic of Participants Included in This Study.

Characteristic  Total Participants(n=25,357)  Group I(n=6352)  Group II(n=6339)  Group III(n=6328)  Group IV(n=6338)  P Value 
Age, yr  46.1 (17.2)  61.0 (14.6)  46.7 (15.9)*  41.0 (14.8)*,  35.9 (12.1)*,,  <0.001 
Male Sex, n (%)  12,353 (48.7)  1352 (10.9)  1909 (15.5)*  3301 (26.7)*,  5791 (46.9)*,,  <0.001 
Body mass index, kg/m2  28.0 (6.3)  28.7 (6.9)  28.1 (6.5)*  27.7 (6.2)*,  27.4 (5.4)*,  <0.001 
Race, n (%)<0.001 
Non-Hispanic white  10,894 (43.0)  2899 (26.6)  2550 (23.4)*  2617 (24.0)*  2828 (26.0),   
Non-Hispanic black  6130 (24.2)  1830 (29.9)  1708 (27.9)  1441 (23.5)*,  1151 (18.8)*,,   
Mexican-American  5613 (22.1)  952 (17.0)  1348 (24.0)*  1572 (28.0)*,  1741 (31.0)*,,   
Other  2720 (10.7)  671 (24.7)  733 (26.9)  698 (25.7)  618 (22.7)   
Smoke status, n (%)<0.001 
Never smoker  12,991 (51.2)  3184 (24.5)  3450 (26.6)*  3226 (24.8)  3131 (24.1)   
Current smoker  6362 (25.1)  1449 (22.8)  1470 (23.1)  1641 (25.8)*,  1802 (28.3)*,,   
Former smoker  6004 (23.7)  1719 (28.6)  1419 (23.6)*  1461 (24.3)*  1405 (23.4)*   
Education level, n (%)<0.001 
Less than 9th grade  3989 (15.8)  1535 (38.5)  952 (23.9)*  829 (20.8)*,  673 (16.9)*,,   
9–12th grade  10,961 (43.4)  2857 (26.1)  2808 (25.6)  2666 (24.3)*  2630 (24.0)*,   
Above 12th grade  10,315 (40.8)  1938 (18.8)  2558 (24.8)*  2809 (27.2)*,  3010 (29.2)*,,   
Poverty income ratio, n (%)<0.001 
Low-income (PIR<1.3)  7134 (30.7)  2006 (28.1)  1780 (25.0)*  1715 (24.0)*  1633 (22.9)*,   
Middle-income (3.50>PIR1.30)  9506 (40.9)  2385 (25.1)  2365 (24.9)  2390 (25.1)  2366 (24.9)   
High-income (PIR3.50)  6590 (28.4)  1290 (19.6)  1673 (25.4)*  1748 (26.5)*  1879 (28.5)*,   
Pre-bronchodilator spirometry
FEV0.5, mL  2412 (699)  1539 (321)  2169 (128)*  2619 (142)*,  3324 (346)*,,  <0.001 
FEV1, mL  3041 (909)  1931 (394)  2721 (231)*  3301 (261)*,  4213 (497)*,,  <0.001 
FVC, mL  3875 (1075)  2705 (605)  3505 (503)*  4142 (558)*,  5153 (691)*,,  <0.001 
FEV0.5/FVC, %  62.5 (8.9)  58.0 (11.3)  62.9 (7.9)*  64.1 (7.5)*,  65.1 (6.5)*,,  <0.001 
FEV1/FVC, %  78.4 (8.8)  72.4 (10.9)  78.5 (7.3)*  80.5 (6.9)*,  82.1 (5.7)*,,  <0.001 

Definition of abbreviations: PIR=poverty income ratio; FEV0.5=forced expiratory volume in 0.5s; FEV1=forced expiratory volume in 1s; FVC=forced vital capacity.

Data are shown as mean (SD) unless otherwise specified.

*

Significantly different from Group I (P<0.05).

Significantly different from Group II (P<0.05).

Significantly different from Group III (P<0.05).

Association Between FEV0.5 and All-Cause Mortality Risk

Fig. 1 illustrates the results of all-cause mortality in the different groups. Significant differences in all-cause mortality were observed among the four groups (log-rank P<0.05). During follow-up, group I had 3054 deaths (48.1%), group II had 1474 deaths (23.3%), group III had 1051 deaths (16.6%), and group IV had 716 deaths (11.3%). Table 2 reports the results of the association between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality risk in the different groups. In the univariable regression analysis, compared with individuals in group IV, individuals in groups I, II, and III had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (HRgroupI 6.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.17–7.27; HRgroupII 2.31, 95% CI 2.11–2.53; HRgroupIII 1.56, 95% CI 1.42–1.72; all P<0.05; Ptrend<0.05). After adjustment for age, sex, smoking, body mass index, body surface area, race, educational level, poverty income ratio, and comorbidities (congestive heart failure, stroke, Asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, cancer, diabetes, and hypertension), the multivariable regression analysis results were consistent. Compared with individuals in group IV, individuals in groups I, II, and III had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (HRgroupI 1.77, 95% CI 1.57–2.00; HRgroupII 1.28, 95% CI 1.15–1.43; HRgroupIII 1.15, 95% CI 1.04–1.28; all P<0.05; Ptrend<0.05). FEV0.5 was numerically higher than FEV3 and FEV3/FVC in its ability (the concordance index of the multivariable Cox regression model) to identify the risk of all-cause mortality, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (Fig. S3).

Fig. 1.

Mortality risk stratified by prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 0.5s levels at baseline. Definition of abbreviations: BD=bronchodilator; FEV0.5=forced expiratory volume in 0.5s.

(0.4MB).
Table 2.

Associations Between Pre-Bronchodilator Forced Expiratory Volume in 0.5s and Risk of All-Cause Mortality.

Group  UnadjustedAdjusted*
  N  HR (95% Cl)  P Value  P Trend  N  HR (95% Cl)  P Value  P Trend 
Group I  25,357  6.70 (6.17–7.27)  <0.001  <0.001  22,957  1.77 (1.57–2.00)  <0.001  <0.001 
Group II    2.31 (2.11–2.53)  <0.001      1.28 (1.15–1.43)  <0.001   
Group III    1.56 (1.42–1.72)  <0.001      1.15 (1.04–1.28)  0.008   
Group IV    Reference        Reference     

Definition of abbreviations: HR=hazard ratio; CI=confidence interval; N=number of participants included in the analysis.

*

Adjust for age, sex, smoking, body mass index, body surface area, race, educational level, poverty income ratio, and comorbidities (congestive heart failure, stroke, asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, cancer, diabetes, and hypertension).

Associations of FEV0.5 With Comorbidities and Chronic Respiratory Symptoms

Table 3 illustrates the results of the association between FEV0.5 and the presence of comorbidities and chronic respiratory symptoms in each group. In terms of chronic respiratory symptoms, the univariable regression analysis revealed that individuals in groups I, II, and III exhibited an elevated risk of chronic cough, wheezing, and dyspnea than those in group IV. These associations persisted in the multivariable regression analysis, which also identified an increased presence of chronic cough, chronic phlegm, wheezing, and dyspnea in groups I, II, and III after adjustment for age, sex, smoking, body mass index, body surface area, race, educational level, and poverty income ratio.

Table 3.

Association Between Comorbidity and Chronic Respiratory Symptoms and Pre-Bronchodilator Forced Expiratory Volume in 0.5s.

Variable  Group  Unadjusted (N=25,357)  Adjusted*
    OR (95% CI)  P Value  P Trend  N  OR (95% CI)  P Value  P Trend 
Congestive heart failure  Group I  9.73 (6.95–13.63)  <0.001  <0.001  23,131  3.54 (2.27–5.52)  <0.001  <0.001 
  Group II  3.28 (2.28–4.73)  <0.001      1.92 (1.26–2.92)  0.002   
  Group III  2.42 (1.66–3.54)  <0.001      1.75 (1.16–2.65)  0.007   
  Group IV  Reference        Reference     
Stroke  Group I  9.64 (6.72–13.84)  <0.001  <0.001  23,152  1.90 (1.18–3.05)  0.008  0.006 
  Group II  3.82 (2.60–5.61)  <0.001      1.63 (1.05–2.52)  0.029   
  Group III  2.17 (1.43–3.28)  <0.001      1.36 (0.88–2.11)  0.166   
  Group IV  Reference        Reference     
Asthma  Group I  2.29 (2.03–2.58)  <0.001  <0.001  23,156  6.53 (5.37–7.93)  <0.001  <0.001 
  Group II  1.48 (1.31–1.69)  <0.001      2.74 (2.32–3.24)  <0.001   
  Group III  1.32 (1.16–1.51)  <0.001      1.89 (1.63–2.20)  <0.001   
  Group IV  Reference        Reference     
Chronic bronchitis  Group I  6.10 (4.98–7.47)  <0.001  <0.001  23,150  5.14 (3.84–6.89)  <0.001  <0.001 
  Group II  2.68 (2.16–3.34)  <0.001      2.54 (1.95–3.30)  <0.001   
  Group III  2.23 (1.78–2.79)  <0.001      2.08 (1.62–2.66)  <0.001   
  Group IV  Reference        Reference     
Emphysema  Group I  16.42 (9.89–27.24)  <0.001  <0.001  23,154  11.36 (6.17–20.93)  <0.001  <0.001 
  Group II  3.46 (1.98–6.04)  <0.001      3.25 (1.77–5.97)  <0.001   
  Group III  2.64 (1.48–4.70)  <0.001      2.45 (1.34–4.47)  0.004   
  Group IV  Reference        Reference     
Cancer  Group I  6.24 (5.22–7.46)  <0.001  <0.001  23,155  1.94 (1.49–2.52)  <0.001  <0.001 
  Group II  3.57 (2.96–4.30)  <0.001      2.12 (1.68–2.67)  <0.001   
  Group III  2.18 (1.79–2.66)  <0.001      1.68 (1.35–2.10)  <0.001   
  Group IV  Reference        Reference     
Diabetes  Group I  5.90 (5.06–6.88)  <0.001  <0.001  23,145  2.41 (1.91–3.04)  <0.001  <0.001 
  Group II  2.91 (2.47–3.43)  <0.001      1.90 (1.55–2.33)  <0.001   
  Group III  1.76 (1.48–2.10)  <0.001      1.45 (1.19–1.77)  <0.001   
  Group IV  Reference        Reference     
Hypertension  Group I  4.33 (3.99–4.71)  <0.001  <0.001  23,065  1.43 (1.24–1.65)  0.001  <0.001 
  Group II  1.92 (1.76–2.10)  <0.001      1.14 (1.01–1.29)  0.032   
  Group III  1.37 (1.25–1.50)  <0.001      1.06 (0.95–1.18)  0.284   
  Group IV  Reference        Reference     
Chronic cough  Group I  2.26 (1.96–2.61)  <0.001  <0.001  19,808  2.65 (2.11–3.32)  <0.001  <0.001 
  Group II  1.29 (1.10–1.51)  0.001      1.49 (1.22–1.82)  <0.001   
  Group III  1.23 (1.05–1.44)  0.012      1.34 (1.12–1.61)  0.001   
  Group IV  Reference        Reference     
Chronic phlegm  Group I  1.92 (1.67–2.20)  <0.001  <0.001  19,803  2.42 (1.94–3.03)  <0.001  <0.001 
  Group II  1.24 (1.07–1.45)  0.005      1.56 (1.28–1.89)  <0.001   
  Group III  1.11 (0.95–1.30)  0.205      1.26 (1.06–1.51)  0.009   
  Group IV  Reference        Reference     
Wheezing  Group I  2.41 (2.18–2.68)  <0.001  <0.001  23,157  5.43 (4.58–6.43)  <0.001  <0.001 
  Group II  1.50 (1.35–1.68)  <0.001      2.58 (2.23–2.97)  <0.001   
  Group III  1.32 (1.18–1.48)  <0.001      1.81 (1.59–2.06)  <0.001   
  Group IV  Reference        Reference     
Shortness of breath  Group I  5.61 (4.94–6.36)  <0.001  <0.001  12,651  4.38 (3.57–5.37)  <0.001  <0.001 
  Group II  2.80 (2.46–3.20)  <0.001      2.53 (2.13–3.00)  <0.001   
  Group III  1.87 (1.63–2.14)  <0.001      1.78 (1.52–2.09)  <0.001   
  Group IV  Reference        Reference     

Definition of abbreviations: OR=odds ratio; CI=confidence interval; N=number of participants included in the analysis.

*

Adjusted for age, sex, smoking, body mass index, body surface area, race, educational level, and poverty income ratio.

In terms of comorbidities, the multivariable regression model revealed a heightened risk of congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, cancer, and diabetes mellitus among individuals in groups I, II, and III compared with those in group IV. Similarly, for stroke and hypertension, an increased presence was observed exclusively in groups I and II when compared with group IV.

Subgroup Analysis

Fig. 2 illustrates the association between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality risk across the various subgroups stratified by sex, age, BMI, race, and smoking status. The association between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality risk remained almost consistent even after stratifying the participants into subgroups by sex (male, female), age (20–40, 41–60, 61–80 years), race (Mexican–American, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black), BMI (normal, overweight, obese), and smoking status (never smoker, former smoker, current smoker). Among the male subgroup, individuals in groups I, II, and III exhibited an increased all-cause mortality risk when compared with individuals in group IV. However, among females, only those in group I demonstrated a significantly elevated risk of all-cause mortality when compared with individuals in group IV. In the subgroup stratified by other race and in the underweight subgroup, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality between individuals in groups I, II, and III and individuals in group IV. In subgroup with FEV1>LLN, FVC>LLN, or both FEV1 and FVC>LLN, individuals in groups I, II, and III had a higher risk of all-cause mortality after adjustment compared with individuals in group IV (Table S1).

Fig. 2.

Multivariable associations between prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 0.5s and risk of all-cause mortality. Definition of abbreviations: BMI=body mass index; BD=bronchodilator; FEV0.5=forced expiratory volume in 0.5s. Adjust for age, sex, smoking, body mass index, body surface area, race, educational level, poverty income ratio, and comorbidities.

(0.81MB).
Non-Linear Association Between FEV0.5 and All-Cause Mortality Risk

Fig. 3 illustrates the non-linear association between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality risk. The association between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality risk manifested as an L-shaped curve. With the exception of the other race subgroup and the underweight subgroup, a similar trend was observed in all subgroups stratified by sex, smoking status, age, race, and BMI.

Fig. 3.

Nonlinear associations between prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 0.5s and risk of all-cause mortality. Definition of abbreviations: BMI=body mass index; BD=bronchodilator; FEV0.5=forced expiratory volume in 0.5s. Adjust for age, sex, smoking, body mass index, body surface area, race, educational level, poverty income ratio, and comorbidities. Panel A shows the non-linear relationship between FEV0.5 and risk of all-cause mortality in all participants. Panel B shows the non-linear relationship between FEV0.5 and the risk of all-cause mortality in the male and female groups. Panel C shows the non-linear relationship between FEV0.5 and the risk of all-cause mortality in populations with different smoking status. Panel D shows the non-linear relationship between FEV0.5 and risk of all-cause mortality for people of different races. Panel E shows the non-linear relationship between FEV0.5 and risk of all-cause mortality in different age groups. Panel F shows the non-linear relationship between FEV0.5 and risk of all-cause mortality for people with different BMI.

(0.48MB).
Discussion

In the present study, adults with a lower FEV0.5 exhibited an elevated presence of four chronic respiratory symptoms, eight comorbidities, and risk of all-cause mortality. An L-shaped non-linear association was observed between FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality risk. The above results were mostly consistent in the subgroup analyses.

The present study builds on past research by extending the association between FEV0.5 and respiratory health outcomes to the adult population. The associations between FEV0.5 and the presence of non-respiratory diseases and risk of all-cause mortality have also been broadened. This provides a new perspective suggesting that FEV0.5 is not only a measure of lung function, but that it may also be a biomarker of overall health.2 The analysis results in the subgroups of FEV1>LLN, FVC>LLN, and both FEV1 and FVC>LLN suggest that the clinical implementation of FEV0.5 measurement may provide additional prognostic value beyond that of FEV1 and FVC.

FEV1 is a useful tool for categorizing the severity of obstructive lung diseases, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Multiple studies have suggested associations between FEV1 and a variety of diseases, including congestive heart failure, stroke, asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, cancer, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, chronic cough, chronic phlegm, wheezing, and dyspnea.17–26 Some studies have also indicated an association between FEV1 and all-cause mortality risk.27,28 The associations of FEV1 with these comorbidities and chronic respiratory symptoms remained consistent when FEV0.5 was evaluated instead of FEV1 in the present study.

FEV0.5 is defined as the volume of gas expelled from the lungs within half a second of the onset of expiration. FEV0.5 provides insight into the patency of the airway during the initial expiration phase. Inflammation or structural alterations to the airway may result in alterations to airflow and a consequent change in FEV0.5. Given that FEV0.5 encompasses the initial phase of expiration, it may prove more susceptible than FEV1 to the effects of inflammation or structural alterations. This is due to the fact that FEV1 measures expiratory volume over the course of 1s, which may encompass some degree of expiration driven by alveolar elastic retraction forces. Some studies have demonstrated that FEV1 remains unimpaired during the initial stages of disease, and it has been observed that the decline in FEV1 becomes evident several years later, which may mean that opportunities for early intervention are missed.29,30 In contrast, FEV0.5 is more specifically oriented toward the initial emptying of the airway. Consequently, the reduction in FEV0.5 may be more pronounced than the reduction in FEV1 during the initial stage of airway disease.

Although our study has made several important discoveries, there are also limitations that should be considered. First, given that the NHANES only performed postbronchodilator spirometry measurements in a limited number of individuals with airflow obstruction, therefore the present analysis was based on the prebronchodilator spirometry measurements, as these were obtained in the majority of the NHANES population. Some studies have demonstrated that postbronchodilator spirometry is a more accurate predictor of mortality than prebronchodilator spirometry, but the difference between the two is relatively minor.31 The association between postbronchodilator FEV0.5 and all-cause mortality risk still warrants further investigation. Therefore, we consider that our findings remain meaningful. Second, our study is based on NHANES 1988–1994 and 2007–12, while the standardization of spirometry was published in 2005.9 NHANES 1988–1994 lacks data on the sharp initiation of the maneuver such as the back-extrapolated volume or time to PEF. Therefore, the quality of lung function tests in NHANES 1988–94 is determined solely based on the repeatability of FEV1 and FVC, which may affect the accurate measurement of FEV0.5. Third, we did not conduct further analyses on causes of mortality due to the absence of data on causes of mortality in NHANES 1988–94. Further research is needed to explore the association between FEV0.5 and respiratory-related mortality. Fourth, since spirometry measurements were only obtained from the participants on a single occasion during the course of the NHANES, we were unable to examine the impact of FEV0.5 decline on respiratory health outcomes. Finally, because the study population was restricted to US adults, our results may not be generalizable to individuals in other countries and regions.

Conclusions

In this study, FEV0.5 was inversely associated with the increased risk of all-cause mortality, the presence of comorbidities, and chronic respiratory symptoms in adults.

Authors’ Contributions

J.L., R.P., F.W., J.O., Y.Z., and P.R. had full access to all of the data in the study. F.W. and J.L. take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Concept and design – R.P., Y.Z. and F.W. Acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data – J.L., R.P., F.W., J.O. Statistical analysis – J.L. and R.P. Drafting of the manuscript – J.L., F.W., Y.Z., and P.R. Study guarantor – J.L. Critical revision of the manuscript – all authors.

Funding

This work was supported by the Foundation of Guangzhou National Laboratory (No. SRPG22-016 and SRPG22-018), the Clinical and Epidemiological Research Project of State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease (No. SKLRD-L-202402), the Plan on Enhancing Scientific Research in Guangzhou Medical University (No. GMUCR2024-01012), and the Guangzhou Science and Technology Plans (No. 202201020372).

Conflict of Interest

None.

Acknowledgments

We thank all participants who volunteered as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. We thank Emily Woodhouse, PhD, from Liwen Bianji (Edanz) (www.liwenbianji.cn) for editing the English text of a draft of this manuscript.

Appendix A
Supplementary Data

The followings are the supplementary data to this article:

References
[1]
A. Rydell, C. Janson, K. Lisspers, Y.T. Lin, J. Ärnlöv.
FEV1 and FVC as robust risk factors for cardiovascular disease and mortality: insights from a large population study.
Respir Med, 227 (2024), pp. 107614
[2]
W.W. Labaki.
FEV1: more than a measurement of lung function, a biomarker of health.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 209 (2024), pp. 1181-1182
[3]
H.M. Lee, S.J. Chung, V.A. Lopez, N.D. Wong.
Association of FVC and total mortality in US adults with metabolic syndrome and diabetes.
Chest, 136 (2009), pp. 171-176
[4]
S.D. Nathan, J. Wanger, J.D. Zibrak, M.L. Wencel, C. Burg, J.L. Stauffer.
Using forced vital capacity (FVC) in the clinic to monitor patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF): pros and cons.
Expert Rev Respir Med, 15 (2021), pp. 175-181
[5]
V. Nève, S. Hulo, J.L. Edmé, S. Boileau, G. Baquet, G. Pouessel, et al.
Utility of measuring FEV0.75/FVC ratio in preschoolers with uncontrolled wheezing disorder.
Eur Respir J, 48 (2016), pp. 420-427
[6]
M. Sanchez-Solis, M.S. Parra-Carrillo, P. Mondejar-Lopez, P.W. Garcia-Marcos, L. Garcia-Marcos.
Preschool asthma symptoms in children born preterm: the relevance of lung function in infancy.
J Clin Med, 9 (2020), pp. 3345
[7]
M.F. Cannon, D.G. Goldfarb, R.A. Zeig-Owens, C.B. Hall, J. Choi, H.W. Cohen, et al.
Normal lung function and mortality in world trade center responders and national health and nutrition examination survey III participants.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 209 (2024), pp. 1229-1237
[8]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007–2008 Data Documentation, Codebook, and Frequencies Spirometry – Pre and Post-Bronchodilator (SPX_E). Available from: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/Nchs/Nhanes/2007-2008/SPX_E.htm#SPXNQFVC [accessed 8.9.24].
[9]
M.R. Miller, J. Hankinson, V. Brusasco, F. Burgos, R. Casaburi, A. Coates, et al.
Standardisation of spirometry.
Eur Respir J, 26 (2005), pp. 319-338
[10]
S.P. Bhatt, S. Bodduluri, A. Nakhmani, E.C. Oelsner.
Unadjusted lower limit of normal for airflow obstruction.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 209 (2024), pp. 1028-1030
[11]
C. Bowerman, N.R. Bhakta, D. Brazzale, B.R. Cooper, J. Cooper, L. Gochicoa-Rangel, et al.
A race-neutral approach to the interpretation of lung function measurements.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 207 (2023), pp. 768-774
[12]
Global Lung Function Initiative calculators for Spirometry, TLCO and Lung volume. Available from: https://gli-calculator.ersnet.org [accessed 8.9.24].
[13]
M. Ekström, D. Mannino.
Research race-specific reference values and lung function impairment, breathlessness and prognosis: analysis of NHANES 2007–2012.
Respir Res, 23 (2022), pp. 271
[14]
Y. Sun, Y. Zhang, X. Liu, Y. Liu, F. Wu, X. Liu.
Association between body mass index and respiratory symptoms in US adults: a national cross-sectional study.
[15]
J.A. Diao, Y. He, R. Khazanchi, M.J. Nguemeni Tiako, J.I. Witonsky, E. Pierson, et al.
Implications of race adjustment in lung-function equations.
N Engl J Med, 390 (2024), pp. 2083-2097
[16]
R.D. Mosteller.
Simplified calculation of body-surface area.
N Engl J Med, 317 (1987), pp. 1098
[17]
M.W. Heidorn, S. Steck, F. Müller, S.O. Tröbs, G. Buch, A. Schulz, et al.
FEV1 predicts cardiac status and outcome in chronic heart failure.
[18]
D.M. Mancini, D. Henson, J. LaManca, S. Levine.
Respiratory muscle function and dyspnea in patients with chronic congestive heart failure.
Circulation, 86 (1992), pp. 909-918
[19]
S.L. Au Yeung, M.C. Borges, D.A. Lawlor, C.M. Schooling.
Impact of lung function on cardiovascular diseases and cardiovascular risk factors: a two sample bidirectional Mendelian randomisation study.
[20]
S.G. Wannamethee, A.G. Shaper, S. Ebrahim.
Respiratory function and risk of stroke.
Stroke, 26 (1995), pp. 2004-2010
[21]
P.L. Enright, M.D. Lebowitz, D.W. Cockroft.
Physiologic measures: pulmonary function tests. Asthma outcome.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 149 (1994), pp. S9-S20
[22]
L.M. Bradshaw, D. Fishwick, T. Slater, N. Pearce.
Chronic bronchitis, work related respiratory symptoms, and pulmonary function in welders in New Zealand.
Occup Environ Med, 55 (1998), pp. 150-154
[23]
S.P. Bhatt, X. Soler, X. Wang, S. Murray, A.R. Anzueto, T.H. Beaty, et al.
Association between functional small airway disease and FEV1 decline in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 194 (2016), pp. 178-184
[24]
L. Cestelli, A. Gulsvik, A. Johannessen, K. Stavem, R. Nielsen.
Reduced lung function and cause-specific mortality: a population-based study of Norwegian men followed for 26 years.
Respir Med, 219 (2023), pp. 107421
[25]
G.G. Woldeamanuel, A.B. Mingude, G.Y. Yitbarek, M.M. Taderegew.
Chronic respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function status in Ethiopian agricultural workers: a comparative study.
BMC Pulm Med, 20 (2020), pp. 86
[26]
N. Jakeways, T. McKeever, S.A. Lewis, S.T. Weiss, J. Britton.
Relationship between FEV1 reduction and respiratory symptoms in the general population.
Eur Respir J, 21 (2003), pp. 658-663
[27]
C. Magnussen, F.M. Ojeda, N. Rzayeva, T. Zeller, C.R. Sinning, N. Pfeiffer, et al.
FEV1 and FVC predict all-cause mortality independent of cardiac function – results from the population-based Gutenberg Health Study.
Int J Cardiol, 234 (2017), pp. 64-68
[28]
R.P. Young, R. Hopkins, T.E. Eaton.
Forced expiratory volume in one second: not just a lung function test but a marker of premature death from all causes.
Eur Respir J, 30 (2007), pp. 616-622
[29]
S.I. Rennard.
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: linking outcomes and pathobiology of disease modification.
Proc Am Thorac Soc, 3 (2006), pp. 276-280
[30]
V. Brusasco, F. Martinez.
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Compr Physiol, 4 (2014), pp. 1-31
[31]
L. Bhatta, L. Leivseth, D. Carslake, A. Langhammer, X.M. Mai, Y. Chen, et al.
Comparison of pre- and post-bronchodilator lung function as predictors of mortality: the HUNT study.
Respirology, 25 (2020), pp. 401-409

Theses authors contributed equally to this work.

Copyright © 2024. SEPAR
Archivos de Bronconeumología
Article options
Tools

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?