4.3 Article

Simultaneous sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen multiple-breath washout (MBW) to examine inherent differences in MBW outcomes

期刊

ERJ OPEN RESEARCH
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00234-2018

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research Respiratory Disease Biomedical Research Unit at the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust
  2. Imperial College, London
  3. Novartis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple-breath washout (MBW) can be performed with different gases (sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen (N-2)) and different devices, all of which give discrepant results. This study aimed to confirm previously reported differences and explore factors influencing discrepant results; equipment factors or the physical properties of gases used. Methods: Healthy controls (HCs) and participants with cystic fibrosis (CF) completed MBW trials on two commercially available devices (Exhalyzer D (N-2) and Innocor (SF6)). Simultaneous washout of both gases at the same time on the commercial equipment and simultaneous washouts using a respiratory mass spectrometer (RMS) were completed in subsets. Primary outcomes were lung clearance index (LCI), breath number and time required to washout. Results: Breath number was higher with N-2 washout than SF6 in both HCs and patients with CF, whether washouts were completed individually or simultaneously. The difference was greater in more advanced disease, largely caused by differences in the final part of the washout. Results from commercial devices were similar to those obtained with the RMS. Conclusions: N-2 MBW results were higher than SF6 MBW, with some of the largest differences reported to date being observed. The biggest impact was at the end of the washout and this was even the case when gases were washed out simultaneously. N-2 and SF6 MBW results are inherently different and should be considered as independent measurements.

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

4.3
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