The effect of body position on pulmonary function: a systematic review

Research article - Open Access - Open Peer Review
Shikma KatzNissim ArishAriel RokachYacov Zaltzman and Esther-Lee Marcus
Contributed equally

Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) are routinely performed in the upright position due to measurement devices and patient comfort. This systematic review investigated the influence of body position on lung function in healthy persons and specific patient groups.

Methods

A search to identify English-language papers published from 1/1998–12/2017 was conducted using MEDLINE and Google Scholar with key words: body position, lung function, lung mechanics, lung volume, position change, positioning, posture, pulmonary function testing, sitting, standing, supine, ventilation, and ventilatory change. Studies that were quasi-experimental, pre-post intervention; compared ≥2 positions, including sitting or standing; and assessed lung function in non-mechanically ventilated subjects aged ≥18 years were included. Primary outcome measures were forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC, FEV1/FVC), vital capacity (VC), functional residual capacity (FRC), maximal expiratory pressure (PEmax), maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax), peak expiratory flow (PEF), total lung capacity (TLC), residual volume (RV), and diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO). Standing, sitting, supine, and right- and left-side lying positions were studied.

Results

Forty-three studies met inclusion criteria. The study populations included healthy subjects (29 studies), lung disease (nine), heart disease (four), spinal cord injury (SCI, seven), neuromuscular diseases (three), and obesity (four). In most studies involving healthy subjects or patients with lung, heart, neuromuscular disease, or obesity, FEV1, FVC, FRC, PEmax, PImax, and/or PEF values were higher in more erect positions. For subjects with tetraplegic SCI, FVC and FEV1 were higher in supine vs. sitting. In healthy subjects, DLCO was higher in the supine vs. sitting, and in sitting vs. side-lying positions. In patients with chronic heart failure, the effect of position on DLCO varied.

Conclusions

Body position influences the results of PFTs, but the optimal position and magnitude of the benefit varies between study populations. PFTs are routinely performed in the sitting position. We recommend the supine position should be considered in addition to sitting for PFTs in patients with SCI and neuromuscular disease. When treating patients with heart, lung, SCI, neuromuscular disease, or obesity, one should take into consideration that pulmonary physiology and function are influenced by body position.

Download PDF

(You must be logged in to add and reply comments)

Interasma on Twitter

Interasma RT @worldallergy: WISC 2018 - Florence Dec. 6-9 Registration online will be closed on November 20th. After this date, registration will on…
18hreplyretweetfavorite
Interasma RT @worldallergy: Top 10 Scientific Articles in the field of psychosocial aspects of allergy published in 2017 (or 2016 as noted). https://…
18hreplyretweetfavorite
Interasma RT @Aller_MD: “#Asthma biologic prices ‘far out of alignment’ with benefit, says ICER” https://t.co/rIKq8LypH9 https://t.co/t8vGuROsUw
18hreplyretweetfavorite
Interasma RT @Aller_MD: “Risk Factors ID'd for Persistent Atopic Dermatitis in Kids Could help clinicians personalize disease prediction” https://t.c…
18hreplyretweetfavorite
Interasma RT @RhinologyO: “The otolaryngologists’ non-surgical training needs to extend beyond the limits of ENT” http…
19hreplyretweetfavorite

Editor: Juan C. Ivancevich, MD

Copyright © Interasma 2003-2017  •  Terms of Use  •  Privacy Policy  •  Contact Us  •  Sitemap

Powered by FREI SA

InterAsma