Suppr超能文献

健康受试者呼出一氧化碳的正常值:两种评估方法的比较。

Normal values of exhaled carbon monoxide in healthy subjects: comparison between two methods of assessment.

作者信息

Moscato Umberto, Poscia Andrea, Gargaruti Riccardo, Capelli Giovanni, Cavaliere Franco

机构信息

Institute of Public Health, Hygiene Division, Catholic University "Sacro Cuore", Largo Francesco Vito, 1, 00168 Rome, Italy.

出版信息

BMC Pulm Med. 2014 Dec 16;14:204. doi: 10.1186/1471-2466-14-204.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In a previous study, exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) has been assessed in healthy non-smokers with a photo acoustic spectrometer Brüel&Kjær 1312. Unexpectedly, values were higher than those reported in literature, which were mostly obtained with electrochemical analysers. This study was aimed to compare eCO values obtained with Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer, a largely utilized electrochemical analyser.

METHODS

Thirty-four healthy subjects, 15 non-smokers and 19 smokers, underwent eCO assessment with Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer during a prolonged expiration (15 seconds). Brüel&Kjær 1312 assessed CO concentration 7 and 12 seconds after the beginning of expiration and displayed the mean value. PiCO + Smokerlyzer was utilized according to the manufacturer's recommendations. In vitro, the two devices were tested with standard concentrations of CO in nitrogen (5, 9.9, 20, and 50 ppm), and the time needed by PiCO + Smokerlyzer readings to stabilize was assessed at different gas flows.

RESULTS

Both Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer presented very good internal consistency. The values provided were strictly correlated, but at low test concentrations, the Brüel&Kjær 1312 readings were greater than the PiCO + Smokerlyzer, and vice versa. PiCO + Smokerlyzer overestimated the CO standard concentrations at 5 and 9.9 ppm by 20%, while Brüel&Kjær 1312 measures were correct. PiCO + Smokerlyzer readings stabilized in 12 seconds during in vitro tests and in 15 seconds during in vivo measurements, suggesting that the values displayed corresponded to the initial phase of expiration.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer may be explained because Brüel&Kjær 1312 measured CO levels in the middle and at the end of expiration while PiCO + Smokerlyzer assessed them in the initial part of expiration.

摘要

背景

在之前的一项研究中,使用布吕尔 & 克雅1312型光声光谱仪对健康非吸烟者的呼出一氧化碳(eCO)进行了评估。出乎意料的是,所得值高于文献报道的值,文献中的值大多是通过电化学分析仪获得的。本研究旨在比较使用布吕尔 & 克雅1312型光声光谱仪和PiCO + Smokerlyzer(一种广泛使用的电化学分析仪)获得的eCO值。

方法

34名健康受试者,15名非吸烟者和19名吸烟者,在长时间呼气(15秒)过程中使用布吕尔 & 克雅1312型光声光谱仪和PiCO + Smokerlyzer进行eCO评估。布吕尔 & 克雅1312型光声光谱仪在呼气开始后7秒和12秒评估一氧化碳浓度并显示平均值。PiCO + Smokerlyzer按照制造商的建议使用。在体外,使用氮气中不同标准浓度的一氧化碳(5、9.9、20和50 ppm)对这两种设备进行测试,并评估PiCO + Smokerlyzer读数在不同气流下达到稳定所需的时间。

结果

布吕尔 & 克雅1312型光声光谱仪和PiCO + Smokerlyzer均具有非常好的内部一致性。提供的值高度相关,但在低测试浓度下,布吕尔 & 克雅1312型光声光谱仪的读数大于PiCO + Smokerlyzer,反之亦然。PiCO + Smokerlyzer在5和9.9 ppm时高估一氧化碳标准浓度20%,而布吕尔 & 克雅1312型光声光谱仪的测量是正确的。在体外测试中,PiCO + Smokerlyzer读数在12秒内稳定,在体内测量中在15秒内稳定,这表明显示的值对应于呼气的初始阶段。

结论

布吕尔 & 克雅1312型光声光谱仪和PiCO + Smokerlyzer之间的差异可能是因为布吕尔 & 克雅1312型光声光谱仪在呼气中期和末期测量一氧化碳水平,而PiCO + Smokerlyzer在呼气初期评估一氧化碳水平。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f731/4275957/6b6f0c1bff4a/12890_2014_631_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验