Officer T M, Pellegrino R, Brusasco V, Rodarte J R
Department of Medicine, Pulmonary Section, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1998 Nov;85(5):1982-8. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1998.85.5.1982.
We compared four algorithms by using least squares regression for determination of pulmonary resistance and dynamic elastance in subjects with emphysema, normal subjects, and subjects with asthma before and after bronchoconstriction. The four methods evaluated include 1) a single resistance and elastance, 2) separate resistances and elastances for each half breath, 3) separate inspiratory and expiratory resistances with a single elastance, and 4) separate inspiratory and expiratory resistances, an expiratory volume interaction term, and a single elastance. All methods gave comparable results in normal and asthmatic subjects. We found expiratory resistance was larger than inspiratory resistance in normal and asthmatic subjects during control conditions, but inspiratory resistance was higher than expiratory resistance in subjects who experienced severe bronchoconstriction in response to methacholine. In subjects who are flow limited, method 2 gives a higher inspiratory resistance than would be computed by assuming that the elastic pressure-volume curve passes through the zero-flow points. Methods 1 and 3 overestimate dynamic elastance and inspiratory resistance. Method 4 appears to identify flow limitation and dynamic hyperinflation and gives a good measure of inspiratory resistance and dynamic elastance.
我们通过最小二乘法回归比较了四种算法,以测定肺气肿患者、正常受试者以及支气管收缩前后哮喘患者的肺阻力和动态弹性。所评估的四种方法包括:1)单一阻力和弹性;2)每半次呼吸的单独阻力和弹性;3)具有单一弹性的单独吸气和呼气阻力;4)单独吸气和呼气阻力、呼气量相互作用项以及单一弹性。所有方法在正常和哮喘受试者中得出了可比的结果。我们发现,在对照条件下,正常和哮喘受试者的呼气阻力大于吸气阻力,但对乙酰甲胆碱产生严重支气管收缩反应的受试者中,吸气阻力高于呼气阻力。在流量受限的受试者中,方法2得出的吸气阻力高于假设弹性压力-容积曲线通过零流量点所计算出的结果。方法1和3高估了动态弹性和吸气阻力。方法4似乎能够识别流量受限和动态肺过度充气,并能很好地测定吸气阻力和动态弹性。