Remotely supervised spirometry versus laboratory-based spirometry during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective analysis

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has constrained access to spirometry, and the inherent risk of infectious transmission during aerosol-generating procedures has necessitated the rapid development of Remotely Supervised Spirometry (RSS). This innovative approach enables patients to perform spirometry tests at home, using a mobile connected spirometer, all under the real-time supervision of a technician through an online audio or video call. Methods In this retrospective study, we examined the quality of RSS in comparison to conventional Laboratory-based Spirometry (LS), using the same device and technician. Our sample included 242 patients, with 129 undergoing RSS and 113 participating in LS. The RSS group comprised 51 females (39.5%) with a median age of 37 years (range: 13–76 years). The LS group included 63 females (55.8%) with a median age of 36 years (range: 12–80 years). Results When comparing the RSS group to the LS group, the percentage of accurate Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) measurements was 78% (n = 101) vs. 86% (n = 97), p = 0.177; for Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) it was 77% (n = 99) vs. 82% (n = 93), p = 0.365; and for both FEV1 and FVC, it was 75% (n = 97) vs. 81% (n = 92), p = 0.312, respectively. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate no significant difference in the quality of spirometry testing between RSS and LS, a result that held true across all age groups, including patients aged over 65 years. The principal advantages of remote spirometry include improved access to pulmonary function tests, reduced infectious risk to curtail disease spread, and enhanced convenience for patients.