• Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
• /
• v.42 no.4
• /
• pp.555-568
• /
• 1995

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.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.42-51
• /
• 2011

Nuclear medicine images (SPECT, PET) were widely used tool for assessment of myocardial viability and perfusion. However it had difficult to define accurate myocardial infarct region. The purpose of this study was to investigate methodological approach for automatic measurement of rat myocardial infarct size using polar map with adaptive threshold. Rat myocardial infarction model was induced by ligation of the left circumflex artery. PET images were obtained after intravenous injection of 37 MBq $^{18}F$-FDG. After 60 min uptake, each animal was scanned for 20 min with ECG gating. PET data were reconstructed using ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) 2D. To automatically make the myocardial contour and generate polar map, we used QGS software (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center). The reference infarct size was defined by infarction area percentage of the total left myocardium using TTC staining. We used three threshold methods (predefined threshold, Otsu and Multi Gaussian mixture model; MGMM). Predefined threshold method was commonly used in other studies. We applied threshold value form 10% to 90% in step of 10%. Otsu algorithm calculated threshold with the maximum between class variance. MGMM method estimated the distribution of image intensity using multiple Gaussian mixture models (MGMM2, ${\cdots}$ MGMM5) and calculated adaptive threshold. The infarct size in polar map was calculated as the percentage of lower threshold area in polar map from the total polar map area. The measured infarct size using different threshold methods was evaluated by comparison with reference infarct size. The mean difference between with polar map defect size by predefined thresholds (20%, 30%, and 40%) and reference infarct size were $7.04{\pm}3.44%$, $3.87{\pm}2.09%$ and $2.15{\pm}2.07%$, respectively. Otsu verse reference infarct size was $3.56{\pm}4.16%$. MGMM methods verse reference infarct size was $2.29{\pm}1.94%$. The predefined threshold (30%) showed the smallest mean difference with reference infarct size. However, MGMM was more accurate than predefined threshold in under 10% reference infarct size case (MGMM: 0.006%, predefined threshold: 0.59%). In this study, we was to evaluate myocardial infarct size in polar map using multiple Gaussian mixture model. MGMM method was provide adaptive threshold in each subject and will be a useful for automatic measurement of infarct size.