Bussotti Maurizio, Agostoni PierGiuseppe, Durigato Alberto, Santoriello Carlo, Farina Stefania, Brusasco Vito, Pellegrino Riccardo
Istituto di Cardiologia dell'Università degli Studi di Milano, Centro Cardiologico, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Centro di Studio per le Ricerche Cardiovascolari del Centro Di Studio per le Ricerche, Milan, Italy.
Istituto di Cardiologia dell'Università degli Studi di Milano, Centro Cardiologico, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Centro di Studio per le Ricerche Cardiovascolari del Centro Di Studio per le Ricerche, Milan, Italy.
Chest. 2009 Feb;135(2):425-433. doi: 10.1378/chest.08-1477. Epub 2008 Nov 18.
Traditionally, ventilatory limitation to exercise is assessed by measuring the breathing reserve (BRR) [ie, the difference between minute ventilation at peak exercise and maximum voluntary ventilation measured at rest]. Recent studies have however, documented important abnormalities in ventilatory adaptation with a remarkable potential to limit exercise even in the presence of a normal BRR. Among these abnormalities is lung hyperinflation and expiratory flow limitation. This was documented by comparing tidal to maximum flow-volume loops (FVLs) collected throughout the test. In the present study, we wondered whether the advantages of using such a technique within the classic cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) might be obscured by the maneuvers interfering with the main functional parameters of the test, and eventually with interpretation of the CPET.
We studied 18 healthy subjects, 19 patients affected by COPD, and 19 patients with chronic heart failure during a maximum exercise test on three different study days in a random order. On one occasion, the CPET was conducted with no FVLs (control test [CTRL]), whereas on the other occasions FVLs were incorporated every 1 min during exercise (FVL(1)-min) or every 2 min during exercise (FVL(2)-min).
None of the classic cardiovascular parameters recorded at ventilatory anaerobic threshold or at peak exercise differed between the study days (by analysis of variance). Furthermore, the coefficients of variation of the main parameters between FVL(1)-min and FVL(2)-min days vs CTRL day were well within the natural variability thresholds reported in the literature.
The FVLs appear to not interfere with the main functional parameters used for the interpretation of CPET.
传统上,通过测量呼吸储备(BRR)[即运动峰值时的分钟通气量与静息时测量的最大自主通气量之间的差值]来评估运动时的通气限制。然而,最近的研究记录了通气适应方面的重要异常情况,即使在呼吸储备正常的情况下,这些异常也具有显著的限制运动的潜力。这些异常情况包括肺过度充气和呼气流量受限。通过比较整个测试过程中收集的潮气与最大流量-容积环(FVL)记录了这一情况。在本研究中,我们想知道在经典心肺运动试验(CPET)中使用这种技术的优势是否会被干扰测试主要功能参数并最终干扰CPET解释的操作所掩盖。
我们在三个不同的研究日,以随机顺序对18名健康受试者、19名慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者和19名慢性心力衰竭患者进行了最大运动测试。一次,在不进行FVL测量的情况下进行CPET(对照测试[CTRL]),而在其他情况下,在运动期间每隔1分钟(FVL(1)-min)或每隔2分钟(FVL(2)-min)纳入FVL测量。
在通气无氧阈或运动峰值时记录的经典心血管参数在不同研究日之间没有差异(通过方差分析)。此外,FVL(1)-min和FVL(2)-min日与CTRL日之间主要参数的变异系数完全在文献报道的自然变异阈值范围内。
FVL似乎不会干扰用于解释CPET的主要功能参数。