Cargando…

Normal values of exhaled carbon monoxide in healthy subjects: comparison between two methods of assessment

BACKGROUND: In a previous study, exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) has been assessed in healthy non-smokers with a photo acoustic spectrometer Brüel&Kjær 1312. Unexpectedly, values were higher than those reported in literature, which were mostly obtained with electrochemical analysers. This study wa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moscato, Umberto, Poscia, Andrea, Gargaruti, Riccardo, Capelli, Giovanni, Cavaliere, Franco
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4275957/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25515007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2466-14-204
_version_ 1782350201062686720
author Moscato, Umberto
Poscia, Andrea
Gargaruti, Riccardo
Capelli, Giovanni
Cavaliere, Franco
author_facet Moscato, Umberto
Poscia, Andrea
Gargaruti, Riccardo
Capelli, Giovanni
Cavaliere, Franco
author_sort Moscato, Umberto
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In a previous study, exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) has been assessed in healthy non-smokers with a photo acoustic spectrometer Brüel&Kjær 1312. Unexpectedly, values were higher than those reported in literature, which were mostly obtained with electrochemical analysers. This study was aimed to compare eCO values obtained with Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer, a largely utilized electrochemical analyser. METHODS: Thirty-four healthy subjects, 15 non-smokers and 19 smokers, underwent eCO assessment with Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer during a prolonged expiration (15 seconds). Brüel&Kjær 1312 assessed CO concentration 7 and 12 seconds after the beginning of expiration and displayed the mean value. PiCO + Smokerlyzer was utilized according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. In vitro, the two devices were tested with standard concentrations of CO in nitrogen (5, 9.9, 20, and 50 ppm), and the time needed by PiCO + Smokerlyzer readings to stabilize was assessed at different gas flows. RESULTS: Both Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer presented very good internal consistency. The values provided were strictly correlated, but at low test concentrations, the Brüel&Kjær 1312 readings were greater than the PiCO + Smokerlyzer, and vice versa. PiCO + Smokerlyzer overestimated the CO standard concentrations at 5 and 9.9 ppm by 20%, while Brüel&Kjær 1312 measures were correct. PiCO + Smokerlyzer readings stabilized in 12 seconds during in vitro tests and in 15 seconds during in vivo measurements, suggesting that the values displayed corresponded to the initial phase of expiration. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer may be explained because Brüel&Kjær 1312 measured CO levels in the middle and at the end of expiration while PiCO + Smokerlyzer assessed them in the initial part of expiration.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4275957
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42759572014-12-25 Normal values of exhaled carbon monoxide in healthy subjects: comparison between two methods of assessment Moscato, Umberto Poscia, Andrea Gargaruti, Riccardo Capelli, Giovanni Cavaliere, Franco BMC Pulm Med Research Article BACKGROUND: In a previous study, exhaled carbon monoxide (eCO) has been assessed in healthy non-smokers with a photo acoustic spectrometer Brüel&Kjær 1312. Unexpectedly, values were higher than those reported in literature, which were mostly obtained with electrochemical analysers. This study was aimed to compare eCO values obtained with Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer, a largely utilized electrochemical analyser. METHODS: Thirty-four healthy subjects, 15 non-smokers and 19 smokers, underwent eCO assessment with Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer during a prolonged expiration (15 seconds). Brüel&Kjær 1312 assessed CO concentration 7 and 12 seconds after the beginning of expiration and displayed the mean value. PiCO + Smokerlyzer was utilized according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. In vitro, the two devices were tested with standard concentrations of CO in nitrogen (5, 9.9, 20, and 50 ppm), and the time needed by PiCO + Smokerlyzer readings to stabilize was assessed at different gas flows. RESULTS: Both Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer presented very good internal consistency. The values provided were strictly correlated, but at low test concentrations, the Brüel&Kjær 1312 readings were greater than the PiCO + Smokerlyzer, and vice versa. PiCO + Smokerlyzer overestimated the CO standard concentrations at 5 and 9.9 ppm by 20%, while Brüel&Kjær 1312 measures were correct. PiCO + Smokerlyzer readings stabilized in 12 seconds during in vitro tests and in 15 seconds during in vivo measurements, suggesting that the values displayed corresponded to the initial phase of expiration. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between Brüel&Kjær 1312 and PiCO + Smokerlyzer may be explained because Brüel&Kjær 1312 measured CO levels in the middle and at the end of expiration while PiCO + Smokerlyzer assessed them in the initial part of expiration. BioMed Central 2014-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4275957/ /pubmed/25515007 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2466-14-204 Text en © Moscato et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Moscato, Umberto
Poscia, Andrea
Gargaruti, Riccardo
Capelli, Giovanni
Cavaliere, Franco
Normal values of exhaled carbon monoxide in healthy subjects: comparison between two methods of assessment
title Normal values of exhaled carbon monoxide in healthy subjects: comparison between two methods of assessment
title_full Normal values of exhaled carbon monoxide in healthy subjects: comparison between two methods of assessment
title_fullStr Normal values of exhaled carbon monoxide in healthy subjects: comparison between two methods of assessment
title_full_unstemmed Normal values of exhaled carbon monoxide in healthy subjects: comparison between two methods of assessment
title_short Normal values of exhaled carbon monoxide in healthy subjects: comparison between two methods of assessment
title_sort normal values of exhaled carbon monoxide in healthy subjects: comparison between two methods of assessment
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4275957/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25515007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2466-14-204
work_keys_str_mv AT moscatoumberto normalvaluesofexhaledcarbonmonoxideinhealthysubjectscomparisonbetweentwomethodsofassessment
AT posciaandrea normalvaluesofexhaledcarbonmonoxideinhealthysubjectscomparisonbetweentwomethodsofassessment
AT gargarutiriccardo normalvaluesofexhaledcarbonmonoxideinhealthysubjectscomparisonbetweentwomethodsofassessment
AT capelligiovanni normalvaluesofexhaledcarbonmonoxideinhealthysubjectscomparisonbetweentwomethodsofassessment
AT cavalierefranco normalvaluesofexhaledcarbonmonoxideinhealthysubjectscomparisonbetweentwomethodsofassessment