Institute for Occupational Physiology, Augusta-Kranken-Anstalt, Bergstr. 23, 44791 Bochum, Germany.
Eur J Med Res. 2011 Mar 28;16(3):108-14. doi: 10.1186/2047-783x-16-3-108.
AIMS OF INVESTIGATION: The chronological age of the Caucasian population and their anthropometrical data have significantly changed within the last five decades. Therefore the question arises whether or not the commonly used reference values of the European Community (ECCS) for lung function may still be accepted today. Since these values were obtained in the 1960s from subjects in a limited age range. For the elderly, the measured values are deduced by extrapolation beyond the range of reference equations which had been obtained in a different population. Therefore decisions concerning elderly and smaller subjects concerning remuneration due to impaired lung function after industrial exposure on the basis of EGKS values are questionable.
Lung function tests were performed by pneumotachography, recording static lung volumes and flow-volume-curves in 262 asymptomatic non smoking males, aged 20 to 90 years. Measurements were performed with the MasterLab, or PneumoScreen systems (CareFusion, Höchberg). RESULTS were compared to the reference values of ECCS, SAPALDIA and LuftiBus. -
For simplicity analysis of age and height dependence of investigated respiratory parameters (VC, FVC, FEV⊂1, FEV⊂1%FVC, PEF, MEF⊂75,50,25) can be described by linear functions (y = a * height ? b * age + c). The forced expiratory vital capacity, FVC, was calculated by FVC = 0.0615H - 0.0308A - 4.673; r = 0.78. Mean FVC for younger subjects was found to be 104.7 ± 10.7% of the ECCS reference values and 96.5 ± 11.8 % in older subjects. For most parameters investigated linear regressions on age were steeper than described by the ECCS reference values. The regression of lung function to height largely follows the ECCS prescriptions.
Bochum lung function values of younger healthy subjects were higher compared to the reference values of the ECCS and showed a steeper age descent. The alternatively discussed reference values of the SAPALDIA-, or LuftiBus-Study are higher, but do not cover all necessary parameters and/or the age range. A multi centre study for contemporary reference values is recommended.
研究目的:在过去的五十年中,白种人群的实际年龄及其人体测量数据发生了显著变化。因此,产生了这样一个问题,即目前是否还可以接受欧洲共同体(ECCS)普遍使用的肺功能参考值。因为这些数值是在 20 世纪 60 年代从年龄范围有限的研究对象中获得的。对于老年人,通过外推超出已在不同人群中获得的参考方程范围来得出所测量的值。因此,基于 EGKS 值,针对因工业暴露而导致肺功能受损的老年和体型较小的人群进行赔偿的决定是值得质疑的。
通过体描仪对 262 名无症状、不吸烟的男性进行肺功能测试,年龄在 20 至 90 岁之间。使用 MasterLab 或 PneumoScreen 系统(CareFusion,Höchberg)进行测量。将测量结果与 ECCS、SAPALDIA 和 LuftiBus 的参考值进行比较。
为了简化分析,可将研究中呼吸参数(VC、FVC、FEV⊂1、FEV⊂1%FVC、PEF、MEF⊂75、50、25)的年龄和身高依赖性用线性函数(y = a * height? b * age + c)来描述。用力肺活量(FVC)通过 FVC = 0.0615H - 0.0308A - 4.673 计算;r = 0.78。年轻组的平均 FVC 为 ECCS 参考值的 104.7 ± 10.7%,而老年组的平均 FVC 为 96.5 ± 11.8%。对于大多数研究的参数,年龄的线性回归斜率比 ECCS 参考值更陡。肺功能与身高的回归基本符合 ECCS 规定。
与 ECCS 参考值相比,波鸿年轻健康受试者的肺功能值更高,且年龄下降趋势更陡峭。有人讨论使用 SAPALDIA-或 LuftiBus-研究的替代参考值,但这些参考值更高,且不涵盖所有必要的参数和/或年龄范围。建议开展一项针对当代参考值的多中心研究。