Ali B A, Abro Y M, Javed N H, Islam M S
Department of Physiology, College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, King Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Respiration. 1988;53(1):58-63. doi: 10.1159/000195397.
This study was designed to compare spirometers used for human testing and to determine whether the results obtained by different spirometers meeting the American Thoracic Society (ATS) requirements are interchangeable. Water-sealed spirometer (Harvard), dry bellow wedge spirometer (Vitalograph) and computerized pneumotachograph (Gould), all of them satisfying the ATS recommendations were compared. Forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), forced expired flow between 25 and 75% of FVC (FEF 25-75%) and 100 FEV1/FVC (FEV1%) were selected for comparative analysis. Measurements of these parameters were carried out on a total of 40 healthy volunteers of mixed nationalities. The Vitalograph values for FVC, FEV1 and FEV1% were significantly higher than those of the water-sealed spirometer (Harvard), but were closely similar to the values obtained by the Gould computerized pneumotachograph. Our results thus do not support the interchangeability of different spirometers and stress the importance of biological standardization of spirometers against each other.
本研究旨在比较用于人体测试的肺活量计，并确定符合美国胸科学会（ATS）要求的不同肺活量计所获得的结果是否可互换。对水封式肺活量计（哈佛牌）、干式波纹管楔形肺活量计（伟康牌）和计算机化呼吸流速仪（古尔德牌）进行了比较，所有这些仪器均符合ATS的建议。选择用力肺活量（FVC）、第1秒用力呼气量（FEV1）、FVC的25%至75%之间的用力呼气流量（FEF 25-75%）和100 FEV1/FVC（FEV1%）进行比较分析。对总共40名不同国籍的健康志愿者进行了这些参数的测量。伟康牌肺活量计的FVC、FEV1和FEV1%值显著高于水封式肺活量计（哈佛牌），但与古尔德计算机化呼吸流速仪获得的值非常相似。因此，我们的结果不支持不同肺活量计的可互换性，并强调了肺活量计相互之间进行生物学标准化的重要性。
