Wald N, Howard S, Smith P G, Bailey A
Thorax. 1975 Apr;30(2):133-40. doi: 10.1136/thx.30.2.133.
Carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb) levels in tobacco smokers vary throughout the day since they are affected by the pattern of tobacco consumption and the rate at which COHb is eliminated. A method is described whereby a single COHb measurement together with a recent smoking history may be used to estimate the average COHb "boost" produced by each cigarette, the total daily carbon monoxide (CO) uptake from smoking, and the mean COHb level throughout the day. These three indices of tobacco smoke absorption were estimated in nine healthy cigarette smokers on different days, each set of three estimations being derived from separate COHb determinations. The indices were reasonably reproducible within the same person, and the differences between people were statistically highly significant (P less than 0-001). For example, the estimates of mean daily COHb level resulting from smoking ranged from 0-7% to 9-3% in smokers who smoked 15 to 40 cigarettes a day. These differences are sufficiently large to distinguish possible differences in the risk of developing diseases such as ischaemic heart disease which may result from the inhalation and absorption of tobacco smoke. The suggested indices also depend less on the time of the blood test and on the daily pattern of smoking than a COHb level alone. The ratio of the COHb boost to the CO yield of a cigarrette may reflect depth of inhalation more accurately than a smoker's self-assessment. Moreover there was little correlation between these two measures of inhalation in the nine subjects studied.
吸烟者的碳氧血红蛋白(COHb)水平在一天中会有所变化,因为它们受到烟草消费模式以及COHb消除速率的影响。本文描述了一种方法,通过单次COHb测量以及近期吸烟史,可以估算每支香烟产生的平均COHb“增加值”、每日吸烟摄入的一氧化碳(CO)总量以及全天的平均COHb水平。在不同日期对9名健康吸烟者进行了这三项烟草烟雾吸收指标的估算,每组三项估算值均来自单独的COHb测定。这些指标在同一个人身上具有合理的可重复性,而且人与人之间的差异在统计学上具有高度显著性(P小于0.001)。例如,每天吸15至40支烟的吸烟者,吸烟导致的平均每日COHb水平估算值在0.7%至9.3%之间。这些差异足够大,足以区分因吸入和吸收烟草烟雾可能导致的诸如缺血性心脏病等疾病风险的潜在差异。与仅依靠COHb水平相比,建议的指标对血液检测时间和每日吸烟模式的依赖程度更低。与吸烟者的自我评估相比,COHb增加值与香烟CO产量的比值可能更准确地反映吸入深度。此外,在所研究的9名受试者中,这两种吸入量测量方法之间几乎没有相关性。