Pulmonary Function Testing Case Questions and

Answers

Answers / Correct Interpretations of the Cases

In the space that follows you will find the correct interpretations to pulmonary
function test presented in each of the cases. These interpretations are based on
American Thoracic Society criteria for interpreting pulmonary function tests and
reflect the material covered in the Primer on Pulmonary Function Tests by Dr.
Benditt that is part of the materials on this website. To go to this primer, click
here.

These cases have been provided by Kenneth Steinberg, MD from the Division of
Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine.

Abbreviations:
FVC Forced Vital Capacity
FEV1 Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second
TLC Total Lung Capacity
RV Residual Volume
DLCO Diffusion Capacity for Carbon Monoxide
BD Bronchodilator

Page 1
Case 1
A 65 year-old man undergoes pulmonary function testing as part of a routine
health-screening test. He had no pulmonary complaints. He is a lifelong non-
smoker and had a prior history of asbestos exposure while serving in the Navy.
His pulmonary function test results are as follows:

Pre-Bronchodilator (BD) Post- BD

Test Actual Predicted % Predicted % Change
FVC (L) 4.39 4.32 102 -1
FEV1 (L) 3.20 3.37 95 7
FEV1/FVC (%) 73 78 8
FRC (L) 3.17 3.25 98
ERV (L) 0.63 0.93 68
RV (L) 2.54 2.32 109
TLC (L) 6.86 6.09 113
DLCO uncorr 25.69 31.28 82
DLCO corr 26.14 31.28 84
DLCO is measured in ml/min/mmHg

His flow volume loops is as follows:

Page 2
Case 1 Interpretation
This case demonstrates an example of normal pulmonary function tests. The
FVC and the FEV1 are 102% and 95% of predicted, respectively, values well
above the lower limit of normal and the FEV1/FVC ratio is greater than the
predicted value minus 8. The flow-volume loop also corresponds quite nicely to
the predicted values for this patient (darkened circles). Based on this normal
spirometry pattern, you would conclude that there is no evidence of air-flow
obstruction. The patient also has normal total lung capacity, indicating that there
is no evidence of restriction, and a normal diffusing capacity for carbon
monoxide, indicating that the alveolar-capillary surface area for gas exchange is
normal. There is no bronchodilator response.

Page 3
Case 2
A 54 year-old man presents to his primary care provider with dyspnea and a
cough. He is a non-smoker with no relevant occupational exposures.

Pre-Bronchodilator (BD) Post- BD

Test Actual Predicted % Predicted Actual % Change
FVC (L) 3.19 4.22 76 4.00 25
FEV1 (L) 2.18 3.39 64 2.83 30
FEV1/FVC (%) 68 80 71 4

His flow volume loop is as follows:

Predicted Peak Flow

Actual Peak Flow

Case 2 Interpretation
The FVC and FEV1 are both below the lower limit of normal (defined as 80% of
the predicted value for the patient). In addition, the FEV1/FVC ratio is only 0.68,
less than the lower limit of normal of the predicted value minus 8 (80-8 = 72) for
this male patient. A low FEV1 and FVC with a decreased FEV1/FVC ratio is
consistent with a diagnosis of air-flow obstruction. With an FEV1 of 64% predicted
this would be classified as “moderate” airflow obstruction. In addition, the FVC
improves by 0.81 L (25% increase) and the FEV1 improves by 0.65L (30%
increase) following administration of a bronchodilator so this patient would qualify
as having a bronchodilator response (defined as a 12% and 200 ml increase in

Page 4
either the FEV1 or FVC). The flow volume loop also shows several abnormalities
consistent with obstructive lung disease. The peak expiratory flow rate is lower
than the predicted peak expiratory flow and the curve has the characteristic
scooped out appearance typically seen in airflow obstruction.

Page 5
Case 3
A 60 year-old man presents to his primary care provider with complaints of
increasing dyspnea on exertion. He has a 40 pack-year history of smoking and is
retired following a career as a building contractor. His pulmonary function testing
is as follows:

Pre-Bronchodilator (BD) Post- BD

Test Actual Predicted % Predicted Actual % Change
FVC (L) 1.89 4.58 41 3.69 96
FEV1 (L) 0.89 3.60 25 1.89 112
FEV1/FVC (%) 47 79
RV (L) 5.72 2.31 248
TLC (L) 7.51 6.41 117
RV/TLC (%) 76 37
DLCO corr 20.73 33.43 62
The units for DLCO are ml/min/mmHg

His flow volume loop is as follows:

Case 3 Interpretation
This patient has markedly abnormal spirometry. The FVC is only 41% predicted
while the FEV1 is only 25% predicted, well below the lower limit of normal of 80%

Page 6
predicted. In addition, the FEV1/FVC ratio is markedly reduced. The combination
of the low FEV1, FVC and reduced FEV1/FVC ratio is consistent with a diagnosis
of airflow obstruction. With an FEV1 of 25% predicted, this would be classified as
“severe” airflow obstruction.

The patient also meets criteria for reversible airflow obstruction as both the FEV1
and FVC improve by over 200 ml and 12% following administration of a
bronchodilator.

In addition to these abnormalities on spirometry, the patient has a markedly

elevated residual volume (RV), a finding that is indicative of air-trapping. The
total lung capacity (TLC) is somewhat elevated at 117% predicted but it is still
shy of the 120% predicted level used to define hyperinflation.

Page 7
Case 4
A 25 year-old man presents to his physician with complaints of dyspnea and
wheezing. He is a non-smoker. Two years ago, he was in a major motor vehicle
accident and was hospitalized for 3 months. He had a tracheostomy placed
because he remained on the ventilator for a total of 7 weeks. His tracheostomy
was removed 2 months after his discharge from the hospital. His pulmonary tests
are as follows:

Pre-Bronchodilator (BD)
Test Actual Predicted % Predicted
FVC (L) 4.73 4.35 109
FEV1 (L) 2.56 3.69 69
FEV1/FVC (%) 54 85

His flow volume loops is as follows:

Flattened expiratory limb

Flattened inspiratory limb

Case 4 Interpretation
This patient has evidence of airflow obstruction on spirometry as he has a low
FEV1 and a reduced FEV1/FVC ratio of 0.54. Given that the FEV1 is 69% of
predicted this patient would be labeled as having “mild airflow obstruction.

Page 8
In order to make a correct diagnosis in this patient, however, you cannot look
simply at the numbers from his spirometry testing but must also look at the flow
volume loops. A noteworthy feature of his flow volume loop is that there is
flattening of both the inspiratory and expiratory limbs. This pattern is seen in
patients who have a fixed upper airway obstruction. In a patient with a prior
history of tracheostomy, you would be very suspicious that this patient has
developed tracheal stenosis, a known long-term complication of tracheostomy
tubes.

Other forms of airway obstruction will also demonstrate characteristic patterns on

the flow-volume loops. Patients with a variable intrathoracic obstruction (eg. a
carcinoid tumor in a mainstem bronchus) have flattening of the expiratory limb of
the flow-volume loop while patients with variable extrathoracic obstruction (eg. a
thyroid tumor) have flattening of the inspiratory limb of the flow-volume loop. All
three of these patterns are demonstrated in the figure below.

Page 9
Case 5
A 41 year-old woman presents to the General Internal Medicine Clinic at
Harborview Medical Center complaining of dyspnea with mild exertion. She has a
10 pack-year history of smoking and a history of using intravenous drugs
including heroin and ritalin. Her pulmonary function tests are as follows:

Pre-Bronchodilator (BD) Post- BD

Test Actual Predicted % Predicted Actual % Change
FVC (L) 0.90 3.09 29 0.74 - 17
FEV1 (L) 0.49 2.57 19 0.44 -10
FEV1/FVC (%) 54 83 59 8
RV (L) 3.83 1.49 257
TLC (L) 4.78 4.44 108
RV/TLC (%) 80 33
DLCO corr 0.75 24.85 3

Her flow volume loop is as follows:

Case 5 Interpretation
This patient has evidence of air-flow obstruction, as her FEV1, FVC and her
FEV1/FVC are all decreased. Her flow volume demonstrates the characteristic
scooped-out appearance seen in obstructive lung disease and also demonstrates
markedly reduced peak expiratory flows. Based on her FEV1 of 19% predicted

Page 10
this would be classified as “very severe” obstructive lung disease. The patient
also has evidence of air-trapping, as her RV is 257% predicted. She would not be
classified as being hyper-inflated because her TLC is only 108% predicted.
There is no evidence of a bronchodilator response as her FVC and FEV1 both
decline following bronchodilator administration. Her DLCO is also decreased,
indicating a loss of alveolar-capillary surface area for gas exchange.

It is highly unlikely for a 41 year-old person to have obstructive lung disease with
only a 10-pack year history of smoking. Asthma is an unlikely diagnosis given the
absence of reversibility with bronchodilator administration. Her chest x-ray
provides some clues to the diagnosis, however. There is marked hyper-lucency
at the bases, suggesting that this is a basilar-predominant form of emphysema.
The minor fissure (arrow) is also shifted upward on the right side, indicating that
the lower lobes are over-inflated. Two disorders can give you early-onset
emphysema with a basilar predominance: alpha-one anti-trypsin deficiency (it is
usually only seen this early if the person also smokes) and ritalin lung. The latter
is an uncommon form of the severe basilar-predominant emphysema seen in
people who previously used intravenous injections of ritalin (methylphenidate).

Page 11
Case 6
A 30 year-old woman presents for evaluation of dyspnea on exertion, which has
been present for 2 months. She is a life-long non-smoker with no prior history of
asthma or other pulmonary problems. She works as a receptionist at a publishing
company. She has two cats and several parakeets at home. Her pulmonary
function testing is as follows:

Pre-Bronchodilator (BD) Post- BD

Test Actual Predicted % Predicted Actual % Change
FVC (L) 1.73 4.37 40 1.79 4
FEV1 (L) 1.57 3.65 43 1.58 0
FEV1/FVC (%) 91 84 88 -3
RV (L) 1.01 1.98 51
TLC (L) 2.68 6.12 44
RV/TLC (%) 38 30
DLCO corr 5.13 32.19 16

Her flow volume loop is as follows:

Case 6 Interpretation
This patient has a markedly reduced FEV1 and FVC. However, the FEV1/FVC
ratio is normal (91%) and, therefore, she cannot be classified as having

Page 12
obstructive lung disease. The pattern of reduced FEV1 and FVC with preserved
FEV1/FVC ratio is often seen in restrictive processes but in order to confirm the
diagnosis of restriction, you must examine the total lung capacity. For this
patient, the TLC is markedly reduced at 41% of predicted and confirms that she
has a restrictive process. Based on her TLC of < 50% predicted, she would be
classified as having a “severe” restrictive defect. Her DLCO is also reduced
suggesting she has a loss of alveolar-capillary surface area for gas exchange
and also suggesting that the cause of her restriction is intrinsic to the lungs (i.e.
due to a problem in the pulmonary parenchyma).

Further evaluation revealed that this patient had hypersensitivity pneumonitis,

likely secondary to her exposure to parakeets. The parakeets were removed from
her home and she was given a course of oral corticosteroids. Following
treatment, her repeat pulmonary function tests were improved, as was the CT
scan of her chest. The pulmonary function tests and CT images are shown
below:

Pulmonary Function Tests Pre- and Post-Treatment

Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment
Test Actual Predicted % Pred. Actual Predicted % Pred.
FVC (L) 1.73 4.37 40 3.00 4.35 69
FEV1 (L) 1.57 3.65 43 2.40 3.63 66
FEV1/FVC (%) 91 84 80 83
RV (L) 1.01 1.98 51 0.70 1.99 35
TLC (L) 2.68 6.12 44 3.70 6.11 61
RV/TLC (%) 38 30 19 30
DLCO corr 5.13 32.19 16 13.61 32.04 42

CT Scan Images

Page 13
Case 7
A 73 year-old man presents with progressive dyspnea on exertion over the past
one year. He reports a dry cough but no wheezes, sputum production, fevers or
hemoptysis. He is a life-long non-smoker and worked as a lawyer until retiring 3
years ago. He likes to hunt and fish in his leisure time. His pulmonary function
testing is as follows:

Pre-Bronchodilator (BD)
Test Actual Predicted % Predicted
FVC (L) 1.57 4.46 35
FEV1 (L) 1.28 3.39 38
FEV1/FVC (%) 82 76
FRC 1.73 3.80 45
RV (L) 1.12 2.59 43
TLC (L) 2.70 6.45 42
RV/TLC (%) 41 42
DLCO corr 5.06 31.64 16

His flow-volume loop is as follows:

Case 7 Interpretation

Page 14
This patient has a reduced FEV1 and FVC with a preserved FEV1/FVC ratio. The
total lung capacity is reduced and the patient, therefore, has a restrictive defect.
The flow-volume loop also has the characteristic appearance of a restrictive
process – tall, narrow and a short expiratory phase. Based on the fact that his
TLC is below 50% predicted, this would be classified as a “severe” restrictive
defect. His DLCO is also markedly reduced indicating he has a reduced alveolar-
capillary interface for gas exchange and suggesting that the cause of his
restrictive process lies within the lung parenchyma.

This patient was subsequent found to have idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. His
chest x-ray and CT images are shown below.

PA and Lateral Chest X-Ray

Chest CT Images

Page 15
Case 8
A 64 year-old woman presents with complaints of dyspnea and orthopnea. She is
a life-long non-smoker. Her pulmonary function testing is as follows:

Pre-Bronchodilator (BD) Post- BD

Test Actual Predicted % Predicted Actual % Change
FVC (L) 1.00 2.51 40 1.02 3
FEV1 (L) 0.61 2.00 30 0.69 13
FEV1/FVC (%) 61 80 67 10
RV (L) 1.15 1.55 74
TLC (L) 2.08 4.04 52
RV/TLC (%) 55 39

Her spirometry is repeated with her in the upright and supine positions:

Test Upright Supine

FVC (L) 0.49 0.37
FEV1 (L) 0.82 0.68
FEV1/FVC (%) 0.60 0.54

Her flow volume loop is as follows:

Page 16
Case 8 Interpretation
This patient has a reduced FEV1 and FVC with a reduced FEV1/FVC ratio. She
would, therefore, be classified as having an obstructive defect. However, she
also has a low TLC (52% predicted). This is evidence of a restrictive defect and,
therefore, this patient would be labeled as having a combined obstructive-
restrictive defect. A DLCO is not provided which makes it difficult to determine if
the cause of her restriction is due to a pulmonary parenchymal process or an
extra-pulmonary process.

An important clue comes from her history. The patient reports orthopnea.
Although this is classically seen in patients with heart failure, it is not specific for
this disease. Patients with diaphragmatic weakness can also present with this
symptom. When they lie supine, gravity no longer exerts an effect on the
diaphragm and abdominal contents and the patients have trouble getting their
diaphragm to descend against the abdominal contents on inspiration. The
presence of diaphragmatic weakness is confirmed by repeating her pulmonary
function tests with her in the upright and supine positions. When she is supine,
her FVC and FEV1 both fall by greater than 20%, thus providing evidence that
she may, in fact, have diaphragmatic weakness as the cause of her lung
restriction.

Page 17
Case 9
A 35 year-old previously healthy man presents with dyspnea, fevers, chills and
night sweats for the past 2 months. He is a non-smoker with no concerning
habits or occupational exposures. His pulmonary function tests are as follows:

Pre-Bronchodilator (BD)
Test Actual Predicted % Predicted
FVC (L) 1.66 4.48 37
FEV1 (L) 0.94 3.67 26
FEV1/FVC (%) 57 82
RV (L) 1.39 1.66 84
TLC (L) 3.06 5.96 51
RV/TLC (%) 45 29

His flow volume loop is as follows:

Flattening of second
portion of expiratory limb

Case 9 Interpretation
This patient has reduced FEV1 and FVC with a low FEV1/FVC ratio, consistent
with an obstructive process. He also has a low TLC indicating he has a restrictive
process as well. He would, therefore, be labeled as having a combined
obstructive-restrictive defect. His obstructive defect would be classified as “very

Page 18
severe” based on his FEV1 of only 26% predicted while his restrictive process
would be labeled as moderate given his TLC of 51% predicted.

There is an interesting finding in his flow-volume loop as well. The expiratory limb
appears to have two components. There is a steep component and then a
second, flatter component over the latter half of exhalation. This pattern suggests
that one lung may be emptying faster than the other and, therefore, that the
slowly emptying lung might have an obstructing airway lesion.

In fact, when the patient underwent chest x-ray imaging, he was found to have a
dense opacity in the right chest. CT scanning revealed the presence of a large
mass. This mass was so large it not only collapsed the right lung but also
compressed the left lung causing lung restriction. It also compresses the airways
(arrow in CT scan) on the right side leading to the obstruction to air-flow out of
the viable right lung. These images are shown below.

Chest X—Ray

Chest CT

Page 19
Case 10
A 53 year-old woman presents with increasing dyspnea on exertion. She denies
cough, fevers, hemoptysis, weight loss or sweats. She was previously an active
runner but has had to cut back significantly because of her symptoms with
exercise. She does note occasional chest pain with exercise but has not had any
syncope or palpitations. Her pulmonary function tests are as follows:

Pre-Bronchodilator (BD) Post- BD

Test Actual Predicted % Predicted Actual % Change
FVC (L) 2.38 2.87 83 2.23 -6
FEV1 (L) 1.95 2.31 84 1.93 -1
FEV1/FVC (%) 82 81 87
RV (L) 1.69 1.58 107
TLC (L) 4.26 4.36 98
RV/TLC (%) 40 36
DLCO corr 9.96 23.25 43
DLCO is measured in ml/min/mmHg

Her flow volume loop is as follows:

Page 20
Case 10 Interpretation
This patient has normal FEV1 and FVC and a preserved FEV1/FVC ratio. She
also has a normal total lung capacity. As a result, there is no evidence of either
obstructive or restrictive lung disease. The patient does have a reduced DLCO,
however, indicating that she has a reduced alveolar-capillary interface for gas
exchange. Based on her DLCO of 43% predicted, she would be labeled as
having a “moderate” gas exchange abnormality.

The finding of an isolated decreased in the DLCO (i.e. normal spirometry and
lung volumes) is highly suggestive of a pulmonary vascular process such as
pulmonary hypertension. This patient was, in fact, found to have pulmonary
hypertension due to chronic thromboembolic disease.

Page 21
Case 11
A 36 year-old woman presents with a several month history of worsening
dyspnea on exertion and exercise limitation. She is a life-long non-smoker and
has no history of asthma or other known pulmonary diseases. She has had to
stop going out with her weekly running group because she can no longer keep up
with her friends. Her pulmonary function testing is as follows:

Pre-Bronchodilator (BD)
Test Actual Predicted % Predicted
FVC (L) 0.88 3.34 26
FEV1 (L) 0.87 2.87 30
FEV1/FVC (%) 99 86
RV (L) 1.61 1.40 115
TLC (L) 2.49 4.73 53
RV/TLC (%) 65 29
DLCO corr 21 26.6 78

A flow-volume loop is not available for this case.

Case 11 Interpretation
This patient has reduced FEV1 and FVC with a preserved FEV1/FVC ratio, a
finding that is suggestive, but not diagnostic of a restrictive process. The
presence of a reduced TLC confirms the presence of a restrictive defect. Based
on the fact that her TLC is 53% of predicted, this would be labeled as a
“moderate” restrictive defect. The patient has an essentially normal DLCO.
Although the value is technically less than 80% of predicted, due to the inherent
variability in this test, values in this range are considered normal. This suggests
that her alveolar-capillary interface for gas exchange for normal and further
suggests that her restrictive process is due to a process extrinsic to the
pulmonary parenchyma.

This patient was sent for further pulmonary function testing. She had a 17% drop
in her FVC from the sitting to supine position. Her maximum inspiratory
pressures (– 35 cm H20), maximum expiratory pressure (- 50 cm H20) and peak
cough flow (180 L/min) were all markedly reduced relative to normal values,
findings that are indicative of muscle weakness. Upon further evaluation by a
neurologist, the patient was found to have Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophy.

Page 22
Case 12
A 44 year-old woman with cirrhosis secondary to chronic alcohol abuse and
Hepatitis C presents with complaints of increasing dyspnea. She reports that her
dyspnea is worse when she is sitting upright or walking but improves when she is
lying flat. She is an active cigarette smoker. On exam, she has a room air oxygen
saturation of 88% in the sitting position and a room air oxygen saturation of 96%
in the supine position. Her pulmonary function testing is as follows.

Pre-Bronchodilator (BD) Post- BD

Test Actual Predicted % Predicted Actual % Change
FVC (L) 3.94 3.69 107% 3.86 -2
FEV1 (L) 2.76 3.03 91% 2.85 3
FEV1/FVC (%) 70 82
RV (L) 1.89 1.86 102
TLC (L) 5.67 5.40 105
RV/TLC (%) 33 33
DLCO corr 10.22 28.22 36
DLCO is measured in ml/min/mmHg

A flow-volume loop is not available for this case.

Case 12 Interpretation
The patient has normal FVC and FEV1 but a reduced FEV1/FVC ratio. Even
though the FEV1 is within the normal range, she would, therefore, be classified
as having mild obstructive lung disease because of the reduced FEV1/FVC ratio.
There is no evidence of a bronchodilator response and the lung volumes are
normal. Her DLCO, however, is markedly reduced and the reduction is far out of
proportion to the abnormalities seen in her spirometry. This suggests that she
may, in fact, have a pulmonary vascular problem.

Patients with chronic liver disease are predisposed to several pulmonary

vascular problems including portopulmonary hypertension and hepatopulmonary
syndrome. The latter disorder is marked by the presence of intrapulmonary
shunts, which occur predominantly at the bases of the lungs. Both of these
problems can cause an isolated reduction in the DLCO on pulmonary function
testing. In her case, she has a symptom (platypnea – dyspnea that is worse in
the upright position compared to the supine position) and a sign (orthodeoxia –
oxygen saturation or PaO2 is worse in the upright position compared to the
supine position) that are both highly suggestive of the presence of
intrapulmonary shunts and, therefore, a diagnosis of hepatopulmonary
syndrome.

Page 23