Tantucci C, Duguet A, Ferretti A, Mehiri S, Arnulf I, Zelter M, Similowski T, Derenne J P, Milic-Emili J
Clinica di Semeiotica Medica, University of Ancona, 60020 Ancona, Italy.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1999 Sep;87(3):969-76. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1999.87.3.969.
In spontaneously breathing subjects, intrathoracic expiratory flow limitation can be detected by applying a negative expiratory pressure (NEP) at the mouth during tidal expiration. To assess whether NEP might increase upper airway resistance per se, the interrupter resistance of the respiratory system (Rint,rs) was computed with and without NEP by using the flow interruption technique in 12 awake healthy subjects, 6 nonsnorers (NS), and 6 nonapneic snorers (S). Expiratory flow (V) and Rint,rs were measured under control conditions with V increased voluntarily and during random application of brief (0.2-s) NEP pulses from -1 to -7 cmH(2)O, in both the seated and supine position. In NS, Rint,rs with spontaneous increase in V and with NEP was similar [3.10 +/- 0.19 and 3.30 +/- 0.18 cmH(2)O x l(-1) x s at spontaneous V of 1.0 +/- 0.01 l/s and at V of 1.1 +/- 0.07 l/s with NEP (-5 cmH(2)O), respectively]. In S, a marked increase in Rint,rs was found at all levels of NEP (P < 0.05). Rint,rs was 3.50 +/- 0.44 and 8.97 +/- 3.16 cmH(2)O x l(-1) x s at spontaneous V of 0.81 +/- 0.02 l/s and at V of 0.80 +/- 0.17 l/s with NEP (-5 cmH(2)O), respectively (P < 0.05). With NEP, Rint,rs was markedly higher in S than in NS both seated (F = 8.77; P < 0.01) and supine (F = 9.43; P < 0.01). In S, V increased much less with NEP than in NS and was sometimes lower than without NEP, especially in the supine position. This study indicates that during wakefulness nonapneic S have more collapsible upper airways than do NS, as reflected by the marked increase in Rint,rs with NEP. The latter leads occasionally to an actual decrease in V such as to invalidate the NEP method for detection of intrathoracic expiratory flow limitation.
在自主呼吸的受试者中,通过在潮气呼气期间在口腔施加呼气负压(NEP),可以检测到胸内呼气气流受限。为了评估NEP本身是否可能增加上气道阻力,在12名清醒健康受试者、6名非打鼾者(NS)和6名非呼吸暂停打鼾者(S)中,通过使用气流中断技术,分别在有和没有NEP的情况下计算呼吸系统的中断阻力(Rint,rs)。在坐位和仰卧位的对照条件下,在自愿增加呼气流量(V)时以及在随机施加-1至-7 cmH₂O的短暂(0.2秒)NEP脉冲期间,测量呼气流量(V)和Rint,rs。在NS组中,随着V自发增加和使用NEP时的Rint,rs相似[在V为1.0±0.01 l/s时自发呼吸时为3.10±0.19 cmH₂O·l⁻¹·s,在使用NEP(-5 cmH₂O)且V为1.1±0.07 l/s时为3.30±0.18 cmH₂O·l⁻¹·s]。在S组中,在所有NEP水平下均发现Rint,rs显著增加(P<0.05)。在V为0.81±0.02 l/s时自发呼吸时Rint,rs为3.50±0.44 cmH₂O·l⁻¹·s,在使用NEP(-5 cmH₂O)且V为0.80±0.17 l/s时为8.97±3.16 cmH₂O·l⁻¹·s(P<0.05)。使用NEP时,S组坐位(F = 8.77;P<0.01)和仰卧位(F = 9.43;P<0.01)的Rint,rs均显著高于NS组。在S组中,使用NEP时V的增加远小于NS组,有时甚至低于不使用NEP时,尤其是在仰卧位。本研究表明,在清醒状态下,非呼吸暂停打鼾者(S)的上气道比非打鼾者(NS)更易塌陷,这通过使用NEP时Rint,rs的显著增加得以体现。后者偶尔会导致V实际下降,从而使NEP方法检测胸内呼气气流受限无效。