These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Overestimation of thoracic gas volume during the airway resistance maneuver. A potential error in the diagnosis of air trapping.
    Author: Nigro CA, Dibur E, Lima S, Giavedoni S, Prieto EJ, Rhodius EE.
    Journal: Medicina (B Aires); 2005; 65(1):31-5. PubMed ID: 15830790.
    Abstract:
    There are no data published about the agreement between the measurement of thoracic gas volume (TGV) during the airway resistance (TGV-Raw) and the conventional technique described by Dubois. The aim of this study was to establish the agreement between both methods to measure TGV. We studied eighty consecutive subjects. Only sixty-six performed acceptable plethysmography maneuvers. The patients were measured with a constant volume plethysmograph (Medical Graphics 1085 DL). TGV was performed in the same patient with two techniques: 1) during the airway resistance (Raw) measurement (TGV-Raw) and 2) during quiet breathing at the end of expiration (TGV). The panting frequency was 1 to 2 Hz with both maneuvers. The differences between both techniques were expressed in percentage (deltaTGV %) and absolute values (deltaTGV). The TGV-Raw of the whole group was higher than TGV (3.69 +/- 1.08 l vs 3.28 +/- 1.05 l, p < 0.001). Similarly, the subgroups of patients had a greater TGV-Raw than TGV (Normal: 3.44 +/- 0.77 l vs 2.98 +/- 0.72 l , p < 0.001; Obstructive: 4.08 +/- 1.19 l vs 3.71 +/- 1.15 l, p < 0.001; Restrictive: 2.62 +/- 0.49 l vs 2.25 +/- 0.51 l, p < 0.01). There was a considerable lack of agreement between the TGV-Raw and TGV, with discrepancies of up to +0.95 l or +34%. The deltaTGV % was similar between the patients' subgroups and between the subjects with different degree of airflow obstruction (Normal: 16.5 +/- 10%, Obstructive: 10.8 +/- 9.4%, Restrictive: 18 +/- 14.3%, p NS; mild obstruction: 10.7 +/- 11%, moderate obstruction: 12.3 +/- 5.7, severe obstruction: 10.1+/- 6.6, p NS). In conclusion, TGV-Raw was larger than TGV. This was because the patients generally panted at a volume above FRC when performing the TGV-Raw maneuver. TGV-Raw should not be used to estimate FRC because FRC would be overestimated and the diagnosis of air trapping may be erroneous.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]