Distribution of regional lung function in upright healthy subjects determined by electrical impedance tomography in two chest examination planes

Abstract

Objective.
The variation in pulmonary gas content induced by ventilation is not uniformly distributed in the lungs. The aim of our study was to characterize the differences in spatial distribution of ventilation in two transverse sections of the chest using electrical impedance tomography (EIT).
Approach.
Twenty adult never-smokers, 10 women and 10 men (mean age ± SD, 31 ± 9 years), were examined in a sitting position with the EIT electrodes placed consecutively in a caudal (6th intercostal space) and a cranial (4th intercostal space) chest location. EIT data were acquired during quiet breathing, slow and forced full expiration manoeuvres. Impedance variations representing tidal volume (VT), vital capacity (VC), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) were calculated at the level of individual image pixels and their spatial distribution was determined using the following EIT measures: the centres of ventilation in ventrodorsal (CoVvd) and right-to-left direction (CoVrl), the dorsal and right fractions of ventilation, the coefficient of variation (CV) and the global inhomogeneity (GI) index.
Main results.
The sums of pixel ventilation-related impedance variations reproduced reliably the volumetric dissimilarities among VT, VC, FEV1 and FVC, with no significant differences noted between the two examination planes. Significant differences in ventilation distribution were found between the planes during tidal breathing and slow full expiration, mainly regarding the ventrodorsal direction, with higher values of CoVvd and dorsal fraction of ventilation in the caudal plane (p<0.01). No significant differences in the spatial distribution of FEV1 and FVC were detected between the examination planes. 
Significance. 
The spatial distribution of ventilation differed between the two examination planes only during the relaxed (quiet breathing and slow VC manoeuvre) but not during the forced ventilation. This effect is attributable to the differences in thoracoabdominal mechanics between these types of ventilation.