Abstract
Background: It is most physiologic to measure the diffusing capacity of the lung by using oxygen, but it is so difficult to measure partial pressure of oxygen in the capillary blood of the lung that in clinical practice it is measured by using carbon monoxide, and single-breath diffusing capacity method is used most widely. However, since the process of withholding the breath for 10 seconds after inspiration to the total lung capacity is very hard to practice for patients who suffer from cough, dyspnea, etc, the intra-breath lung diffusing capacity method which requires a single exhalation of low-flow rate without such process was devised. In this study, we want to know whether or not there is any significant difference in the diffusing capacity of the lung measured by the single-breath and intra-breath methods, and if any, which factors have any influence. Methods: We chose randomly 73 persons without regarding specific disease, and after conducting 3 times the flow-volume curve test, we selected forced vital capacity(FVC), percent of predicted forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume within 1 second($FEV_1$), percent of forced expiratory volume within 1 second, the ratio of forced expiratory volume within 1 second against forced vital capacity($FEV_1$/FVC) in test which the sum of FVC and $FEV_1$ is biggest. We measured the diffusing capacity of the lung 3 times in each of the single-breath and intra-breath methods at intervals of 5 minutes, and we evaluated which factors have any influence on the difference of the diffusing capacity of the lung between two methods[the mean values(ml/min/mmHg) of difference between two diffusing capacity measured by two methods] by means of the linear regression method, and obtained the following results: Results: 1) Intra-test reproducibility in the single-breath and intra-breath methods was excellent. 2) There was in general a good correlation between the diffusing capacity of the lung measured by a single-breath method and that measured by the intra-breath method, but there was a significant difference between values measured by both methods($1.01{\pm}0.35ml/min/mmHg$, p<0.01) 3) The difference between the diffusing capacity of the lung measured by both methods was not correlated to FVC, but was correlated to $FEV_1$, percent of $FEV_1$, $FEV_1$/FVC and the gradient of methane concentration which is an indicator of distribution of ventilation, and it was found as a result of the multiple regression test, that the effect of $FEV_1$/FVC was most strong(r=-0.4725, p<0.01) 4) In a graphic view of the difference of diffusing capacity measured by single-breath and intra-breath method and $FEV_1$/FVC, it was found that the former was divided into two groups in section where $FEV_1$/FVC is 50~60%, and that there was no significant difference between two methods in the section where $FEV_1$/FVC is equal or more than 60% ($0.05{\pm}0.24ml/min/mmHg$, p>0.1), but there was significant difference in the section, less than 60%($-4.5{\pm}0.34ml/min/mmHg$, p<0.01). 5. The diffusing capacity of the lung measured by the single-breath and intra-breath method was the same in value($24.3{\pm}0.68ml/min/mmHg$) within the normal range(2%/L) of the methane gas gradient, and there was no difference depending on the measuring method, but if the methane concentration gradients exceed 2%/L, the diffusing capacity of the lung measured by single-breath method became $15.0{\pm}0.44ml/min/mmHg$, and that measured by intra-breath method, $11.9{\pm}0.51ml/min/mmHg$, and there was a significant difference between them(p<0.01). Conclusion: Therefore, in case where $FEV_1$/FVC was less than 60%, the diffusing capacity of the lung measured by intra-breath method represented significantly lower value than that by single-breath method, and it was presumed to be caused largely by a defect of ventilation-distribution, but the possibility could not be excluded that the diffusing capacity of the lung might be overestimated in the single-breath method, or the actual reduction of the diffusing capacity of the lung appeared more sensitively in the intra-breath method.
연구배경: 폐확산능은 산소를 이용하여 측정하는 것이 가장 생리적이지만 폐모세혈의 산소분압측정이 어려워 임상에서는 일산화탄소를 이용하여 측정하고 있으며, 단회호흡(single-breath)폐확산능검사법이 가장 널리 사용되고있는 방법이다. 그러나 총폐용량까지 흡기한후 10초간 숨을 참는 과정을 기침, 호흡곤란 등이 있는 환자로선 수용하기 곤란하므로 이러한 과정없이 낮은 유량의 일회호기만을 필요로 히는 호흡내(intra-breath)폐확산능검사법이 고안되었다. 본 연구에서는 단회호흡법과 호흡내법으로 측정한 폐확산능간에 유의한 차이가 있는지 그리고 차이가 있다면 어떤 인자가 영향을 미치는지를 알아보고자 하였다. 방법: 특정질환과 무관하게 임의로 73명을 선택하고 유량-용적곡선 검사를 3회 시행한후 노력성 폐활량(FVC)과 1초간 노력성호기량($FEV_1$)의 합이 가장 큰 검사에서 노력성폐활량, 1초간 노력성호기량, 1초간 노력성호기량의 노력성 폐활량에 대한 비($FEV_1$/FVC)를 구했다. 폐확산능은 5분간격으로 각각 3회씩 단회호흡법과 호흡내법으로 측정하였으며, 선형적 상관분석으로 어떤 인자가 두 방법간의 폐확산능의 차[단회호흡법과 호흡내법에 의한 각각의 폐확산능의 차이의 평균치(mL/min/mmHg)]에 영향을 미치는지를 평가하여 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었다. 결과: 1) 단회호흡법 및 호흡내법 모두 검사내 재현성은 우수하였다. 2) 단회호흡법과 호흡내법으로 측정한 폐확산능간에는 전체적으로 유의한 상관관계가 있었지만, 두 방법의 측정치간에는 의미있는 치아가 있었다($1.01{\pm}0.35ml/min/mmHg$, p<0.01). 3) 단회호흡법과 호흡내법간의 폐확산능의 차이는 노력성폐활량과는 상관관계가 없었지만, 1초간 노력성호기량, $FEV_1$/FVC 및 환기배분의 지표인 메탄농도의 기울기와는 유의한 상관관계가 있었고 다중상관분석결과 $FEV_1$/FVC에 의한 영향이 가장 컸다(r=-0.4725, p<0.01). 4) 단회호흡법과 호흡내법간의 폐확산능의 차이와 $FEV_1$/FVC를 도식화하면 두 방법간의 폐확산능의 차이는 $FEV_1$/FVC가 50~60%인 구간에서 두 군으로 분리됨을 알수 있으며, $FEV_1$/FVC가 60% 이상에서는 두방법간에 유의한 차이가 없으나($0.05{\pm}0.24ml/min/mmHg$, p>0.1) 60% 미만에서는 유의한 차이가 있었다($-4.65{\pm}0.34ml/min/mmHg$, p<0.01). 5) 메탄농도의 기울기가 정상범위인 2%/L이내에선 단회호흡법과 호흡내법의 폐확산능이 모두 $24.3{\pm}0.68ml/min/mmHg$로 측정방법에 따른 차이가 없지만 2%/L를 초과한 경우에는 단회호흡법에 의한 폐확산능이 $15.0{\pm}0.44ml/min/mmHg$ 호흡내법에 선 $11.9{\pm}0.51ml/min/mmHg$로 두 방법간에 유의한 차이가 있었다(p<0.01). 따라서 $FEV_1$/FVC가 60% 미만일때는 호흡내법으로 측정한 폐확산능이 단회호흡법보다 의미있게 낮은 값을 보이는데, 그 이유는 주로 환기배분의 장애로 추정되지만 폐확산능 이 단회호흡법에서 과대평가되거나 폐확산능의 감소가 호흡내법에서 더 예민하게 나타 났을 가능정도 배제할수 없다. 결론: 73명을 대상으로 폐확산능을 단회호흡법과 호흡내법으로 측정해본 결과 호흡내법은 검사의 재현성도 우수하고 폐기능이 정상이거나 제한성 장애, 그리고 경도의 폐쇄성장애가 있는 경우에는 단회호흡법을 대체해서 사용할수 있지만, 중등도 이상의 폐쇄성장애가 있는 경우에는 단회호흡법보다 유의하게 낮은 검사치를 보였다. 호흡내법과 단회호흡법에 의한 폐확산능의 차이가 호흡내법이 단회호흡법에 비해 폐확산능의 감소를 예민하게 나타내주는 것인지 혹은 환기의 불균형에 의한 영향을 많이 받아서인지는 연구가 더 필요할 것이다.
(Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul City Boramae Hospital)
;