Sartene R, Dartus C, Bernard J L, Mathieu M, Goldman M D
Service De Pneumologie, Hopital Robert Ballanger, Aulnay Sous Bois, France.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1993 Nov;75(5):2142-50. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1993.75.5.2142.
In 19 normal subjects in the supine posture, we compared accuracy and precision of calibration methods that utilized different ranges of tidal volumes and thoracoabdominal partitioning: spontaneous quiet breathing (QB), isovolume maneuvers, and voluntary efforts to breathe with variable tidal volume and thoracoabdominal partitioning. Thoracic and abdominal movements were measured with the respiratory area fluxometer. Calibration methods utilizing one or more types of respiratory efforts were applied to three measurement situations: QB, variable breathing (volume and thoracoabdominal partitioning), and simulated obstructive apnea (isovolume efforts). Qualitative diagnostic calibration (QDC) included QB data only. The isovolume method (ISOCAL) included isovolumetric efforts at end expiration (functional residual capacity) and QB. Multilinear regression analyses were performed on data sets that included 1) voluntary efforts to breathe with variable volume and thoracoabdominal partitioning (CAL 1), 2) QB in addition to variable volume and partitioning (CAL 2), and 3) isovolume maneuvers in addition to QB and variable volume and partitioning efforts (CAL 3). When calibration data included a wide range of tidal volume, variable thoracoabdominal partitioning, and isovolume efforts (CAL 3), a stable calibration with small bias and scatter during all respiratory patterns was obtained. Excluding isovolume maneuvers (CAL 2) and QB (CAL 1) did not diminish accuracy. Limiting data to isovolume efforts at functional residual capacity plus QB (ISO-CAL) caused a significant increase in scatter during variable breathing patterns. Limiting calibration data to that portion of QB with small variation in the uncalibrated sum of thoracic and abdominal movements (QDC) caused significant increases in scatter in both isovolume efforts and variable breathing.
在19名仰卧位的正常受试者中，我们比较了利用不同潮气量范围和胸腹划分的校准方法的准确性和精密度：自主安静呼吸（QB）、等容动作以及潮气量和胸腹划分可变的自主呼吸努力。使用呼吸面积通量计测量胸部和腹部运动。将利用一种或多种呼吸努力类型的校准方法应用于三种测量情况：QB、可变呼吸（潮气量和胸腹划分）以及模拟阻塞性呼吸暂停（等容动作）。定性诊断校准（QDC）仅包括QB数据。等容方法（ISOCAL）包括呼气末（功能残气量）的等容动作和QB。对包括以下内容的数据集进行多线性回归分析：1）潮气量和胸腹划分可变的自主呼吸努力（CAL 1），2）除潮气量和划分可变外还包括QB（CAL 2），以及3）除QB、潮气量和划分可变努力外还包括等容动作（CAL 3）。当校准数据包括广泛的潮气量范围、可变的胸腹划分和等容动作（CAL 3）时，在所有呼吸模式下都获得了具有小偏差和离散度的稳定校准。排除等容动作（CAL 2）和QB（CAL 1）不会降低准确性。将数据限制为功能残气量加QB时的等容动作（ISO - CAL）会导致可变呼吸模式下离散度显著增加。将校准数据限制为未校准的胸部和腹部运动总和变化较小的QB部分（QDC）会导致等容动作和可变呼吸中的离散度均显著增加。
