当前位置: X-MOL 学术Scand. J. Clin. Lab. Invest. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Comparison of the automatised and the optimised carbon monoxide rebreathing methods
Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation ( IF 2.1 ) Pub Date : 2022-09-21 , DOI: 10.1080/00365513.2022.2122078
Katja Kellenberger 1 , Thomas Steiner 1 , Jon Peter Wehrlin 1
Affiliation  

Abstract

Recently, a new automated carbon monoxide (CO) rebreathing method (aCO) to estimate haemoglobin mass (Hbmass) was introduced. The aCO method uses the same CO dilution principle as the widely used optimised CO rebreathing method (oCO). The two methods differ in terms of CO administration, body position, and rebreathing time. Whereas with aCO, CO is administered automatically by the system in a supine position of the subject, with oCO, CO is administered manually by an experienced operator with the subject sitting. Therefore, the aim of this study was to quantify possible differences in Hbmass estimated with the two methods. Hbmass was estimated in 18 subjects (9 females, 9 males) with oCO using capillary blood samples (oCOc) and aCO taking simultaneously venous blood samples (aCOv) and capillary blood samples (aCOc). Overall, Hbmass was different between the three measurement procedures (F = 57.55, p < .001). Hbmass was lower (p < .001) for oCOc (737 g ± 179 g) than for both aCOv (825 g ± 189 g, −9.3%) and aCOc (835 g ± 189 g, −10.6%). There was no difference in Hbmass estimated with aCOv and aCOc procedures (p = .12). Three factors can likely explain the 10% difference in Hbmass: differences in calculations (including a factor for myoglobin flux), body position (distribution of CO in blood circulation) during rebreathing, and time of blood sampling. Moreover, the determination of Hbmass with aCO is possible with capillary blood sampling instead of venous blood sampling.



中文翻译:

自动化和优化一氧化碳再呼吸方法的比较

摘要

最近,引入了一种新的自动一氧化碳 (CO) 再呼吸方法 (aCO) 来估计血红蛋白质量 (Hb mass )。aCO 方法使用与广泛使用的优化 CO 再呼吸法 (oCO) 相同的 CO 稀释原理。这两种方法在二氧化碳管理、身体姿势和再呼吸时间方面有所不同。而对于 aCO,CO 是由系统在受试者仰卧位时自动管理的,而对于 oCO,CO 是由经验丰富的操作员在受试者坐着的情况下手动管理的。因此,本研究的目的是量化用两种方法估计的Hb质量的可能差异。血红蛋白质量在 18 名受试者(9 名女性,9 名男性)中使用毛细血管血样 (oCOc) 和 aCO 同时采集静脉血样 (aCOv) 和毛细血管血样 (aCOc) 估计。总体而言,三种测量程序之间的Hb质量不同 ( F  = 57.55, p  < .001)。oCOc (737 g ± 179 g) 的Hb质量( p  < .001) 低于 aCOv (825 g ± 189 g, -9.3%) 和 aCOc (835 g ± 189 g, -10.6%)。使用 aCOv 和 aCOc 程序估计的 Hb质量没有差异( p  = .12)。三个因素可能可以解释 Hb质量10% 的差异:计算的差异(包括肌红蛋白通量的一个因素)、再呼吸期间的身体位置(血液循环中的 CO 分布)​​和采血时间。此外,用 aCO 测定 Hb质量可以用毛细血管采血代替静脉采血。

更新日期:2022-09-21
down
wechat
bug