Houtveen Jan H, Groot Paul F C, de Geus Eco J C
Department of Health Psychology, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Int J Psychophysiol. 2006 Feb;59(2):97-106. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.02.003.
The purpose of the current study was to validate the change in thoracic impedance (dZ) derived respiratory signal obtained from four spot electrodes against incidental spirometry. Additionally, a similar validation was performed for a dual respiratory belts signal to compare the relative merit of both methods. Participants were 38 healthy adult subjects (half male, half female). Cross-method comparisons were performed at three (paced) respiration frequencies in sitting, supine and standing postures. Multilevel regression was used to examine the within- and between-subjects structure of the relationship between spirometric volume and the respiratory amplitude signals obtained from either dZ or respiratory belts. Both dZ derived respiratory rate and dual belts derived respiratory rate accurately reflected the pacing frequencies. For both methods, fixed factors indicated acceptable but posture-specific regression on spirometric volume. However, random factors indicated large individual differences, which was supported by variability of gain analyses. It was concluded that both the dZ and dual belts methods can be used for measurement of respiratory rate and within-subjects, posture-specific, changes in respiratory volume. The need for frequent subject-specific and posture-specific calibration combined with relatively large measurement errors may strongly limit the usefulness of both methods to assess absolute tidal volume and minute ventilation in ambulatory designs.
本研究的目的是验证从四个贴片电极获取的胸阻抗(dZ)衍生呼吸信号相对于附带的肺活量测定法的变化情况。此外,还对双呼吸带信号进行了类似的验证,以比较两种方法的相对优点。参与者为38名健康成年受试者(男女各半)。在坐位、仰卧位和站立位三种(有节奏的)呼吸频率下进行了跨方法比较。采用多水平回归分析来研究肺活量与从dZ或呼吸带获得的呼吸幅度信号之间关系的受试者内和受试者间结构。dZ衍生的呼吸频率和双呼吸带衍生的呼吸频率均准确反映了起搏频率。对于两种方法,固定因素表明对肺活量有可接受但因姿势而异的回归。然而,随机因素表明个体差异较大,增益分析的变异性也支持了这一点。得出的结论是,dZ和双呼吸带方法均可用于测量呼吸频率以及受试者内、因姿势而异的呼吸量变化。由于需要频繁进行受试者特异性和姿势特异性校准,再加上相对较大的测量误差,这可能会严重限制这两种方法在动态设计中评估绝对潮气量和分钟通气量的实用性。