4.2 Article

Assessment of concordance between diffusion of carbon monoxide through the lung using the 10 s breath-hold method, and the simultaneous NO/CO technique, in healthy participants

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resp.2019.103319

关键词

Lung; Diffusing capacity; Transfer factor of the lung for CO; Transfer factor of the lung for NO; Breathhold time

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction There is limited, large sample size, healthy control data comparing measurement of diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) via the 10 s single-breath carbon monoxide uptake method (DLCO10) and using a DLCO-DLNO double diffusion test performed with a 5 s time of apnoea (DLCO5). Objectives: The primary objective was to compare DLCO5 and DLCO10 in healthy participants. The secondary objective was to evaluate the reproducibility of DLCO5. Material and methods: We included medical students at Caen University Hospital, from 2008 to 2011. We performed a standard single-breath carbon monoxide uptake and combined DLCO and DLNO measurement for each participant. The combined test was repeated one week later. Results: Among the 153 study participants, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean values of DLCO10 (10.2 +/- 2.2 mmol.min(-1) kPa(-1)) and DLCO5 (10.3 +/- 2.2 mmol.min(-1) kPa(-1); paired t-test p = 0.19). Corrected for the same FiO(2), DLCO5 was calculated at 10.5 +/- 2.3 mmol.min(-1) kPa(-1) and was significantly different from DLCO10 (paired t-test p < 0.001). DLCO5 deviates from 1,6 mmol.min(-1) kPa(-1) (4,6 mL.min(-1). mmHg(-1)) or 15 % of DLCO10 (17 % above and 13% below, for 95 % of the subjects). Forty-seven participants were included in the DLCO5 reproducibility test. The 2 test sessions were carried out at 6 +/- 2 day intervals. Reproducibilities for DLCO, DLNO, DmCO and Vc was respectively 1.2 (11 %), 6.8 (13%), 16.5 (32 %), 12.5 (17 %) mmol.min(-1) kPa(-1). Conclusion: In healthy participants, discrepancies between DLCO measured during the double diffusion and DLCO measured on an apnoea of 10 s are quite large. It may be an indication that the Roughton and Forster interpretation to describe this type of measurements is inadequate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据