Pierce R J, McDonald C F, Thuys C A, Rochford P D, Barter C E
Department of Thoracic Medicine, Repatriation General Hospital, Heidelberg, Australia.
Thorax. 1987 Aug;42(8):604-14. doi: 10.1136/thx.42.8.604.
A study was designed to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of rebreathing and single breath soluble gas uptake measurements of effective pulmonary blood flow (Q) in patients with airways obstruction. Both rebreathing (RB) and single breath (SB) estimates of Q were compared with direct Fick and thermodilution (TD) measurements of cardiac output at rest and during exercise in eight patients with chronic, poorly reversible airflow obstruction with mean FEV1 65% predicted and mean FEV1/FVC 53%. The mean (SD) resting values obtained were QRB 3.47 (0.46), QSB 4.75 (1.15), QFick 4.77 (0.97), and QTD 5.15 (0.98). QRB was significantly lower than the other three estimates, which did not differ significantly from each other. Exercise produced significant increases in all four estimates for the group. The mean exercise values were QRB 6.23 (1.19), QSB 7.62 (1.97), QFick 8.97 (1.96), and QTD 9.09 (1.00), both QRB and QSB being significantly less than QFick and QTD. Analysis of variance of the rest, exercise, and combined data showed highly significant relationships with the TD and Fick measurements for both QRB and QSB over the range of values studied. In addition, the reproducibility of QRB and QSB was assessed in 15 other patients with chronic airflow obstruction (mean FEV1 42% predicted, FEV1/FVC 43%) and in 10 normal subjects. The coefficients of intrasubject variability for a single measurement for QRB were 8.7% in normal subjects and 10.2% in patients and for QSB were 11.7% in normal subjects and 16.1% in patients. The group differences from morning to afternoon, between days, and over a month were not significant in the normal subjects. In the patients QRB was slightly higher in the afternoon than in the morning of the same day, but the differences between days and over a month were not significant for either test. Although both tests detected the increase in pulmonary blood flow during exercise, the single breath test was more accurate at rest. Some underestimation was present for rebreathing at rest and for both tests during exercise, but this can be allowed for. In patients with mild airflow obstruction the reproducibility of the soluble gas uptake methods was similar to that of invasive catheter methods of cardiac output estimation. The single breath test in particular was, however, less reproducible in patients with more severe airflow obstruction, and the rebreathing method may be more useful for detecting increases in pulmonary blood flow in these patients.
一项研究旨在评估气道阻塞患者中重复呼吸法和单次呼吸法测量有效肺血流量(Q)的准确性和可重复性。在8例慢性、可逆性差的气流阻塞患者中,将重复呼吸法(RB)和单次呼吸法(SB)对Q的估计值与静息和运动时的心输出量直接Fick法及热稀释法(TD)测量值进行比较。这些患者的平均第一秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)为预测值的65%,平均FEV1/用力肺活量(FVC)为53%。获得的静息值均值(标准差)为:QRB 3.47(0.46),QSB 4.75(1.15),QFick 4.77(0.97),QTD 5.15(0.98)。QRB显著低于其他三个估计值,而其他三个估计值之间无显著差异。运动使该组所有四个估计值均显著增加。运动值均值为:QRB 6.23(1.19),QSB 7.62(1.97),QFick 8.97(1.96),QTD 9.09(1.00),QRB和QSB均显著低于QFick和QTD。对静息、运动及合并数据的方差分析表明,在所研究的值范围内,QRB和QSB与TD及Fick测量值均有高度显著的相关性。此外,在另外15例慢性气流阻塞患者(平均FEV1为预测值的42%,FEV1/FVC为43%)和10名正常受试者中评估了QRB和QSB的可重复性。QRB单次测量的受试者内变异系数在正常受试者中为8.7%,在患者中为10.2%;QSB在正常受试者中为11.7%,在患者中为16.1%。正常受试者从上午到下午、不同日期及一个月内的组间差异均不显著。在患者中,QRB在同一天下午略高于上午,但两种测试在不同日期及一个月内的差异均不显著。虽然两种测试均检测到运动时肺血流量增加,但单次呼吸测试在静息时更准确。静息时重复呼吸法及运动时两种测试均存在一定程度的低估,但这可以予以考虑。在轻度气流阻塞患者中,可溶性气体摄取法的可重复性与有创心输出量估计导管法相似。然而,单次呼吸测试在气流阻塞更严重的患者中尤其重复性较差,而重复呼吸法可能对检测这些患者的肺血流量增加更有用。