Aardal Marit E, Svendsen Lene L, Lehmann Sverre, Eagan Tomas M, Haaland Ingvild
Department of Thoracic Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, 5021, Bergen, Norway.
Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
BMC Res Notes. 2017 Oct 10;10(1):497. doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-2825-0.
The aim of this pilot study was to compare spirometric values obtained with different types of spirometers, spirometers of same type, and repeated measurements with the same spirometer in a pulmonary function laboratory setting.
12 healthy volunteers performed spirometry on four hot-wire (SensorMedics), two ultrasonic (Spirare) and one wedge-bellows (Vitalograph S) spirometers, according to ATS/ERS (American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society) guidelines. Spirometric values were compared using linear mixed models analysis with a random intercept for subjects and a fixed effect for type of spirometer used. Confidence intervals and p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Mean ± SD (L) values for hot-wire, ultrasonic and wedge-bellows spirometers for FVC (forced vital capacity) were 4.02 ± 0.66, 3.69 ± 0.61 and 3.93 ± 0.69, and for FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in one second) 3.06 ± 0.44, 2.95 ± 0.44 and 3.10 ± 0.49. Significant differences were found between hot-wire and ultrasonic and between wedge-bellows and ultrasonic spirometers for FVC and FEV1, and between hot-wire and wedge-bellows spirometers for FVC but not for FEV1. There were no significant differences between spirometers of same type, and low mean differences in repeated measurements for all spirometers included. In conclusion, the pilot study shows systematically higher values for FVC and FEV1 for hot-wire and wedge-bellows compared to ultrasonic spirometers.
本初步研究的目的是在肺功能实验室环境中比较使用不同类型肺活量计、同一类型肺活量计以及使用同一肺活量计进行重复测量所获得的肺量计值。
12名健康志愿者根据美国胸科学会/欧洲呼吸学会（ATS/ERS）指南，在四台热线式（森美）、两台超声式（Spirare）和一台楔型风箱式（伟康S型）肺活量计上进行了肺量测定。使用线性混合模型分析比较肺量计值，对受试者采用随机截距，对所使用的肺活量计类型采用固定效应。对置信区间和p值进行多重比较调整。热线式、超声式和楔型风箱式肺活量计的用力肺活量（FVC）的平均±标准差（L）值分别为4.02±0.66、3.69±0.61和3.93±0.69，第一秒用力呼气量（FEV1）分别为3.06±0.44、2.95±0.44和3.10±0.49。在FVC和FEV1方面，热线式与超声式以及楔型风箱式与超声式肺活量计之间存在显著差异，在FVC方面热线式与楔型风箱式肺活量计之间存在显著差异，但在FEV1方面不存在显著差异。同一类型的肺活量计之间没有显著差异，所有纳入的肺活量计在重复测量中的平均差异较低。总之，初步研究表明，与超声式肺活量计相比，热线式和楔型风箱式肺活量计的FVC和FEV1值系统性更高。
