4.4 Article

Methods for Measuring Lung Volumes: Is There a Better One?

期刊

RESPIRATION
卷 91, 期 4, 页码 273-280

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000444418

关键词

Lung volume management; Ventilatory defects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Accurate measurement of lung volumes is of paramount importance to establish the presence of ventilatory defects and give insights for diagnostic and/or therapeutic purposes. Objectives: It was the aim of this study to measure lung volumes in subjects with respiratory disorders and in normal controls by 3 different techniques (plethysmographic, dilutional and radiographic methods), in an attempt to clarify the role of each of them in performing such a task, without any presumptive 'a priori' superiority of one method above others. Patients and Methods: In different groups of subjects with obstructive and restrictive ventilatory defects and in a normal control group, total lung capacity, functional residual capacity (FRC) and residual volume were measured by body plethysmography, multi-breath helium (He) dilution and radiographic CT scan method with spirometric gating. Results: The 3 methods gave comparable results in normal subjects and in patients with a restrictive defect. In patients with an obstructive defect, CT scan and plethysmography showed similar lung volumes, while on average significantly lower lung volumes were obtained with the He dilution technique. Taking into account that the He dilution technique does primarily measure FRC during tidal breathing, our data suggest that in some patients with an obstructive defect, a number of small airways can be functionally closed at end-expiratory lung volume, preventing He to reach the lung regions subserved by these airways. Conclusion: In all circumstances, both CT scan with spirometric gating and plethysmographic methods provide similar values of lung volumes. In contrast, the He dilution method can measure lower lung volumes in some patients with chronic airflow obstruction. (C) 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据