Rodenstein D O, Stănescu D C
Am Rev Respir Dis. 1982 Dec;126(6):1040-4. doi: 10.1164/arrd.1982.126.6.1040.
We have previously shown that in some asthmatic patients, plethysmographic total lung capacity, measured from mouth pressure versus plethysmographic volume (Vbox) changes (TLCm), is overestimated, whereas TLCes, derived from esophageal pressure versus Vbox changes, is an accurate estimate of lung volume (VL). We studied 24 patients with chronic airflow obstruction (mean forced expiratory volume in one second, 1.23 L(SD:0.64 L) and mean specific airway conductance, SGaw, 0.052 +/- 0.016 cm H2O-1 X S-1) to reassess the relative merits of TLCm and the 7-min closed-circuit He dilution technique (TLCHe) in this condition. The TLCHe (6.54 +/- 1.09 L) was significantly less (p less than 0.001) than both TLCm (7.53 +/- 1.20 L) and TLCes (7.16 +/- 1.12 L), whereas TLCm was greater than TLCes (p less than 0.001). Differences between TLCes and TLCHe (ranging from -0.11 to 2.17 L) and between TLCm and TLCes (from -0.10 to 1.48 L) were correlated to the degree of airway obstruction as assessed by SGaw (p less than 0.001 and p less than 0.01, respectively). We conclude that VL is overestimated by TLCm and underestimated by TLCHe in moderate to severe chronic air-flow obstruction. The "trapped gas" volume (TLCm to TLCHe difference) is actually made up by these two additive errors.
我们之前已经表明,在一些哮喘患者中,通过口腔压力与体积描记法测得的肺容积变化(Vbox)所测量的体积描记法全肺容量(TLCm)被高估了,而从食管压力与Vbox变化得出的TLCes是肺容积(VL)的准确估计值。我们研究了24例慢性气流阻塞患者(一秒用力呼气容积平均为1.23L(标准差:0.64L),比气道传导率(SGaw)平均为0.052±0.016cmH₂O⁻¹×s⁻¹),以重新评估在这种情况下TLCm和7分钟闭合回路氦稀释技术(TLCHe)的相对优点。TLCHe(6.54±1.09L)显著低于TLCm(7.53±1.20L)和TLCes(7.16±1.12L)(p<0.001),而TLCm大于TLCes(p<0.001)。TLCes与TLCHe之间的差异(范围为-0.11至2.17L)以及TLCm与TLCes之间的差异(范围为-0.10至1.48L)与通过SGaw评估的气道阻塞程度相关(分别为p<0.001和p<0.01)。我们得出结论,在中度至重度慢性气流阻塞中,TLCm高估了VL,而TLCHe低估了VL。“潴留气体”体积(TLCm与TLCHe的差值)实际上是由这两个累加误差构成的。