摘要
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.
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.
出处
《中华预防医学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2010年第9期795-799,共5页
Chinese Journal of Preventive Medicine
关键词
心肺功能测定仪
多氏袋
能量消耗
准确性
Pulmonary function equipment
Douglas bag
Energy expenditure
Validation
