CAJ | 학술논문

目的对心肺功能测定仪的测量准确性进行评价.方法以12名青年学生(男、女各6名)为研究对象,应用多氏袋和心肺功能测定仪(K4b2),分别对受试者在静息、中等强度(跑台机坡度10%、速度2.7 km/h)、高等强度(跑台机坡度10%、速度5.8 km/h)3种典型状态下的耗氧量(VO2)、CO2产生量(VCO2)以及能量消耗(EE)进行测定,以多氏袋法为参考标准,将测定结果加以比对分析.结果在不同运动状态下,应用多氏袋和心肺功能测定仪获得的VO2分别为:静息状态分别为(0.22±0.03)、(0.22±0.05)L/min(t=0.120,P>0.05);中等强度状态分别为(0.95±0.12)、(0.96±0.14)L/min(t=0.240,P>0.05);高等强度状态分别为(1.63±0.28)、(1. 54±0.35)L/min(t=1.487,P>0.05).VCO2:静息状态分别为(0.18±0.02)、(0.18±0.04)L/min(t=0.425,P>0.05);中等强度状态分别为(0.82±0.11)、(0.83±0.13)L/min(t=0.579,P>0.05);高等强度状态分别为(1.64±0.27)、(1.52±0.39)L/min(t=2.330,P<0.05).EE:静息状态分别为(269.40±35.70)、(267.02±55.39)kJ/h(t=0.200,P>0.05);中等强度状态分别为(1165.76±148.06)、(1185.91±161.89)kJ/h(t=0.326,P>0.05);高等强度状态分别为(2062.91±341.97)、(1912.27±483.88)kJ/h(t=1.718,P>0.05).除了在高强度运动状态下心肺功能测定仪对VCO2有一定的低估外,两种方法获得的其他测定结果之间的差异均无统计学意义.经Bland-Altman一致性分析,两种方法的测量差值在均值线上下分布均衡,测量系统误差为24.7 kJ/h,表明心肺功能仪与多氏袋的测量值之间具有较好的个体一致性.结论心肺功能测定仪具有良好的测量准确性.
목적 대심폐공능측정의적측량준학성진행평개.방법 이12명청년학생(남、녀각6명)위연구대상,응용다씨대화심폐공능측정의(K4b2),분별대수시자재정식、중등강도(포태궤파도10%、속도2.7 km/h)、고등강도(포태궤파도10%、속도5.8 km/h)3충전형상태하적모양량(VO2)、CO2산생량(VCO2)이급능량소모(EE)진행측정,이다씨대법위삼고표준,장측정결과 가이비대분석.결과 재불동운동상태하,응용다씨대화심폐공능측정의획득적VO2분별위:정식상태분별위(0.22±0.03)、(0.22±0.05)L/min(t=0.120,P>0.05);중등강도상태분별위(0.95±0.12)、(0.96±0.14)L/min(t=0.240,P>0.05);고등강도상태분별위(1.63±0.28)、(1. 54±0.35)L/min(t=1.487,P>0.05).VCO2:정식상태분별위(0.18±0.02)、(0.18±0.04)L/min(t=0.425,P>0.05);중등강도상태분별위(0.82±0.11)、(0.83±0.13)L/min(t=0.579,P>0.05);고등강도상태분별위(1.64±0.27)、(1.52±0.39)L/min(t=2.330,P<0.05).EE:정식상태분별위(269.40±35.70)、(267.02±55.39)kJ/h(t=0.200,P>0.05);중등강도상태분별위(1165.76±148.06)、(1185.91±161.89)kJ/h(t=0.326,P>0.05);고등강도상태분별위(2062.91±341.97)、(1912.27±483.88)kJ/h(t=1.718,P>0.05).제료재고강도운동상태하심폐공능측정의대VCO2유일정적저고외,량충방법 획득적기타측정결과 지간적차이균무통계학의의.경Bland-Altman일치성분석,량충방법 적측량차치재균치선상하분포균형,측량계통오차위24.7 kJ/h,표명심폐공능의여다씨대적측량치지간구유교호적개체일치성.결론 심폐공능측정의구유량호적측량준학성.
Objective To determine the validity of the pulmonary function equipments. Methods 12 young students (including six males and six females) were enrolled as our research subjects. And the values of oxygen consumption (VO2) ,carbon dioxide production (VCO2) and energy expenditures (EE) of the subjects under three typical activity intensities: resting, moderate intensity (on a treadmill with grade 10% and speed 2. 7 km/h) and hard intensity (on a treadmill with grade 10% and speed 5.8 km/h) were measured using the pulmonary function equipment (K4b2) and Douglas-bag respectively. And the Douglas-bag method was used as reference and the results were compared with the other method. Results The measured VO2 values by using the Douglas-bag and the pulmonary function equipment under three typical activity intensities were: at rest (0. 22 ± 0. 03), (0. 22 ± 0. 05) L/min (t = 0. 120, P > 0. 05);moderate intensity condition (0. 95 ± 0. 12), (0. 96 ± 0. 14) L/min (t = 0. 240, P > 0. 05); hard intensity condition (1.63 ± 0. 28), (1.54 ± 0. 35) L/min (t = 1. 487, P > 0. 05). For VCO2 values: at rest (0. 18 ± 0.02),(0.18 ±0.04) L/min (t=0. 425,P>0. 05); moderate intensity (0.82 ±0.11), (0.83 ±0. 13) L/min (t=0. 579,P>0. 05); hard intensity (1.64 ±0.27),(1.52 ±0.39) L/min (t=2.330,P < 0. 05). And for EE values, at rest (269. 40 ± 35.70), (267.02 ± 55. 39) kJ/h (t = 0. 200, P > 0. 05);moderate intensity (1165.76 ± 148.06), (1185.91 ± 161.89) kJ/h (t = 0. 326, P > 0. 05); hard intensity(2062.91 ±341.97) ,(1912.27 ±483.88) kJ/h (t= 1.718,P>0.05) respectively. The results showed that there were no significant differences between the two methods except the VCO2 values under high intensity condition was underestimated by the pulmonary function equipment. Bland-Altman test showed that the difference of the two methods was evenly distributed by the mean and standard error of the system was 24. 7 kJ/h. Our data showed the results from the Douglas-bag and the pulmonary function equipment were consistent. Conclusion Pulmonary function equipment had good validity in assessing the energy expenditure in Chinese adults.