Limper Ulrich, Gauger Peter, Beck Luis E J
German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Aerospace Medicine, Space Physiology, Cologne, Germany.
Aviat Space Environ Med. 2011 Apr;82(4):448-54. doi: 10.3357/asem.2883.2011.
Aims of this study were: 1) to determine cardiac output by inert gas rebreathing (CO(reb)) during transition into 0 Gz in the standing position; and 2) to compare impedance cardiography (ICG) and pulse contour method (PCM) with CO(reb) as a reference method.
We measured baseline CO(reb) and heart rate (HR) on the ground, and CO(reb), CO(pcm), CO(icg), and HR in standing and supine positions in the transition to weightlessness in six subjects. We conducted repeated measures ANOVA, Bland and Altman analysis, and analysis of percentage error of each data set.
CO(reb) rose from 5.03 +/- 0.7 upright ground control to 11.45 +/- 3.6 L x min(-1) in 0 Gz. HR and stroke volume (SV) rose from 83 +/- 14 to 113 +/- 19 bpm and from 61 +/- 6 to 99 +/- 18 ml, respectively. Mean CO(reb), CO(pcm), and CO(icg) across all conditions were 10.45 +/- 3.04, 7.42 +/- 1.71, and 6.57 +/- 2.46 L x min(-1), respectively. Overall Bland and Altman analysis showed poor agreement for CO(pcm) and CO(icg) compared to CO(reb).
Large bias for both comparisons indicated that both PCM and ICG underestimate the true CO value. Paired CO values of individual subjects showed a better correlation between methods and a broad bias range, indicating a preponderant role for large between-subjects variability. Repeated CO(reb) determinations in 1 Cz (i.e., when the cardiovascular system is in a steady state) should be used for calibration of the PCM and of ICG data. PCM and ICG can then be used to track CO dynamics during rapid changes of acceleration profiles.
本研究的目的是:1)确定站立位过渡到0 Gz期间通过惰性气体重呼吸法测定的心输出量(CO(reb));2)将阻抗心动图(ICG)和脉搏轮廓法(PCM)与作为参考方法的CO(reb)进行比较。
我们在地面上测量了6名受试者的基线CO(reb)和心率(HR),并在从站立位和仰卧位过渡到失重状态时测量了CO(reb)、CO(pcm)、CO(icg)和HR。我们进行了重复测量方差分析、布兰德和奥特曼分析以及每个数据集的百分比误差分析。
在0 Gz时,CO(reb)从直立位地面对照时的5.03±0.7升至11.45±3.6 L×min⁻¹。HR和每搏输出量(SV)分别从83±14升至113±19次/分钟和从61±6升至99±18毫升。所有条件下的平均CO(reb)、CO(pcm)和CO(icg)分别为10.45±3.04、7.42±1.71和6.57±2.46 L×min⁻¹。总体布兰德和奥特曼分析表明,与CO(reb)相比,CO(pcm)和CO(icg)的一致性较差。
两种比较的大偏差表明,PCM和ICG均低估了真实的CO值。个体受试者的配对CO值显示方法之间具有更好的相关性和较宽的偏差范围,表明受试者间的巨大变异性起主导作用。在1 Cz(即心血管系统处于稳定状态时)重复测定CO(reb)应用于校准PCM和ICG数据。然后,PCM和ICG可用于追踪加速度剖面快速变化期间的CO动态。