J S Yem1, M J Turner, A B Baker. 1. Department of Anaesthetics, The University of Sydney, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of the accuracy of partial rebreathing measurements of pulmonary blood flow (PBF) in patients with abnormal lungs have not fully explained the sources of error. METHODS: We used computer models of emphysema and pulmonary embolism incorporating both ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) and ventilation-volume (V/V) heterogeneity to investigate systematic errors in partial rebreathing PBF measurements. We studied (i) errors produced under usual conditions, (ii) effects of recirculation, (iii) effects of alveolar-proximal airway and alveolar-capillary PCO2 and VCO2 differences, (iv) effects of alveolar V/Q inhomogeneity and (v) effects of rebreathing time. RESULTS: In the pulmonary embolism model the systematic error is only acceptable (<10%) when the simulated PBF is low (2-3 litre min(-1)). In the emphysema model PBF is underestimated by more than 20% at all cardiac outputs studied. Four sources of systematic errors were found. (i) Alveolar-proximal airway PCO2 gradients and flux differences between the proximal airway and alveolar compartments contribute most to the systematic error. (ii) V/Q inhomogeneity causes PCO2 gradients between the alveolar compartments and pulmonary capillary blood, and between pulmonary capillary compartments. (iii) Rebreathing times are inadequate in the presence of V/V mismatch. (iv) The apparent effect of venous blood recirculation is small in emphysema but significant in pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that PBF cannot be measured accurately by partial rebreathing in lungs with emphysema or embolism. Systematic errors are caused mainly by errors in end-tidal PCO2 values.
BACKGROUND: Studies of the accuracy of partial rebreathing measurements of pulmonary blood flow (PBF) in patients with abnormal lungs have not fully explained the sources of error. METHODS: We used computer models of emphysema and pulmonary embolism incorporating both ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) and ventilation-volume (V/V) heterogeneity to investigate systematic errors in partial rebreathing PBF measurements. We studied (i) errors produced under usual conditions, (ii) effects of recirculation, (iii) effects of alveolar-proximal airway and alveolar-capillary PCO2 and VCO2 differences, (iv) effects of alveolar V/Q inhomogeneity and (v) effects of rebreathing time. RESULTS: In the pulmonary embolism model the systematic error is only acceptable (<10%) when the simulated PBF is low (2-3 litre min(-1)). In the emphysema model PBF is underestimated by more than 20% at all cardiac outputs studied. Four sources of systematic errors were found. (i) Alveolar-proximal airway PCO2 gradients and flux differences between the proximal airway and alveolar compartments contribute most to the systematic error. (ii) V/Q inhomogeneity causes PCO2 gradients between the alveolar compartments and pulmonary capillary blood, and between pulmonary capillary compartments. (iii) Rebreathing times are inadequate in the presence of V/V mismatch. (iv) The apparent effect of venous blood recirculation is small in emphysema but significant in pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that PBF cannot be measured accurately by partial rebreathing in lungs with emphysema or embolism. Systematic errors are caused mainly by errors in end-tidal PCO2 values.