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: [Single-breath and rebreathing methods for measurement of pulmonary diffusing function: a comparative study].
    Author: Liu QX, Zheng JP, Xie YQ, Guan WJ, Jiang CY, An JY, Yu XX, Liu WT, Gao Y.
    Journal: Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi; 2013 Jul; 36(7):510-5. PubMed ID: 24262087.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference of pulmonary diffusing capacity measured by single-breath (SB) and re-breathing (RB) in normal subjects, patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We enrolled a cohort of subjects from the Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Disease between September 2011 and February 2012: control group 29 (male 9, female 20, 42-74 y), ILD group 32 (male 15, female 17, 41-72 y), COPD group 32 (male 28, female 4, 40-75 y). All subjects underwent pulmonary diffusing capacity test using SB or RB method according to random figures order list. Diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide per predicted measured by SB method (SB-DLCO%pred) of the normal group was used as the standard to adjust the diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide per predicted measured by RB method (RB-DLCO%pred) and diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide per liter of VA per predicted measured by RB (RB-DLCO/VA%pred) in the 3 groups, respectively. Comparisons between 2 groups were performed by using the independent-sample t test, among more than 2 groups by using the One-Way ANOVA test, while the ROC curve was used to calculate the area under curve (AUC) and its 95%CI. RESULTS: In the control group, 15 subjects' RB-DLCO%pred was lower than 80%, and the mean value (78.8 ± 2.1)% was also lower than 80%. Using SB-DLCO%pred of the normal group as a standard to adjust the RB-DLCO%pred, the corrected value was 1.097, and then this value was used to adjust RB-DLCO/VA%pred in the 3 groups, respectively. Before correction DLCO%pred [the control group: (91.2 ± 1.9)% vs (78.8 ± 2.1)%; the ILD group: (45.8 ± 2.6)% vs (60.0 ± 1.9)%;the COPD group: (66.3 ± 2.9)% vs (56.6 ± 1.6)%]and DLCO/VA%pred [the control group: (99.8 ± 2.3)% vs (84.6 ± 4.5)%; the ILD group: (75.9 ± 3.0)% vs (88.5 ± 5.4)%; the COPD group: (80.2 ± 3.7)% vs (50.6 ± 2.5)% ] between the SB and RB were statistically different among the 3 groups. After correction, only the DLCO%pred [(45.8 ± 2.6)% vs (65.8 ± 2.1)%], DLCO/VA%pred [ (75.9 ± 3.0)% vs (102.2 ± 6.2)%] of the ILD group and the DLCO/VA%pred [(80.2 ± 3.7) vs (58.3 ± 2.8)%] of the COPD group had significant difference between the 2 methods (t = -6.00-4.68, all P < 0.01) . The test time of re-breathing in the COPD group (106 ± 5) s was significant longer than that of the ILD group (73 ± 4) s and the control group (79 ± 5) s (F = 11.99, P < 0.01), and the correlation between DLCO/VA%pred and the test time(r = -0.661, P < 0.01) was higher than the relationship between DLCO%pred and the test time (r = -0.391, P < 0.01). Furthermore, in the ILD group, the area of RB-DLCO%pred under ROC was 0.893, 95%CI being 0.817-0.970. In the COPD group, the area of RB-DLCO/VA%pred under ROC was 0.895, 95%CI being 0.811-0.979. CONCLUSIONS: There were differences between re-breathing and single-breath in measuring diffusing capacity. The present predicted value of the re-breathing method needed further study to confirm its applicability. Re-breathing method was more consistent with the respiratory physiology, and might be a better method to detect diseased states.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]