Cargando…

In vitro and in vivo functional residual capacity comparisons between multiple-breath nitrogen washout devices

Functional residual capacity (FRC) accuracy is essential for deriving multiple-breath nitrogen washout (MBNW) indices, and is the basis for device validation. Few studies have compared existing MBNW devices. We evaluated in vitro and in vivo FRC using two commercial MBNW devices, the Exhalyzer D (EM...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tonga, Katrina O., Robinson, Paul D., Farah, Claude S., King, Greg G., Thamrin, Cindy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: European Respiratory Society 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5703358/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29204436
http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00011-2017
_version_ 1783281667363831808
author Tonga, Katrina O.
Robinson, Paul D.
Farah, Claude S.
King, Greg G.
Thamrin, Cindy
author_facet Tonga, Katrina O.
Robinson, Paul D.
Farah, Claude S.
King, Greg G.
Thamrin, Cindy
author_sort Tonga, Katrina O.
collection PubMed
description Functional residual capacity (FRC) accuracy is essential for deriving multiple-breath nitrogen washout (MBNW) indices, and is the basis for device validation. Few studies have compared existing MBNW devices. We evaluated in vitro and in vivo FRC using two commercial MBNW devices, the Exhalyzer D (EM) and the EasyOne Pro LAB (ndd), and an in-house device (Woolcock in-house device, WIMR). FRC measurements were performed using a novel syringe-based lung model and in adults (20 healthy and nine with asthma), followed by plethysmography (FRC(pleth)). The data were analysed using device-specific software. Following the results seen with ndd, we also compared its standard clinical software (ndd v.2.00) with a recent upgrade (ndd v.2.01). WIMR and EM fulfilled formal in vitro FRC validation recommendations (>95% of FRC within 5% of known volume). Ndd v.2.00 underestimated in vitro FRC by >20%. Reanalysis using ndd v.2.01 reduced this to 11%, with 36% of measurements ≤5%. In vivo differences from FRC(pleth) (mean±sd) were 4.4±13.1%, 3.3±11.8%, −20.6±11% (p<0.0001) and −10.5±10.9% (p=0.005) using WIMR, EM, ndd v.2.00 and ndd v.2.01, respectively. Direct device comparison highlighted important differences in measurement accuracy. FRC discrepancies between devices were larger in vivo, compared to in vitro results; however, the pattern of difference was similar. These results represent progress in ongoing standardisation efforts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5703358
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher European Respiratory Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57033582017-12-04 In vitro and in vivo functional residual capacity comparisons between multiple-breath nitrogen washout devices Tonga, Katrina O. Robinson, Paul D. Farah, Claude S. King, Greg G. Thamrin, Cindy ERJ Open Res Original Articles Functional residual capacity (FRC) accuracy is essential for deriving multiple-breath nitrogen washout (MBNW) indices, and is the basis for device validation. Few studies have compared existing MBNW devices. We evaluated in vitro and in vivo FRC using two commercial MBNW devices, the Exhalyzer D (EM) and the EasyOne Pro LAB (ndd), and an in-house device (Woolcock in-house device, WIMR). FRC measurements were performed using a novel syringe-based lung model and in adults (20 healthy and nine with asthma), followed by plethysmography (FRC(pleth)). The data were analysed using device-specific software. Following the results seen with ndd, we also compared its standard clinical software (ndd v.2.00) with a recent upgrade (ndd v.2.01). WIMR and EM fulfilled formal in vitro FRC validation recommendations (>95% of FRC within 5% of known volume). Ndd v.2.00 underestimated in vitro FRC by >20%. Reanalysis using ndd v.2.01 reduced this to 11%, with 36% of measurements ≤5%. In vivo differences from FRC(pleth) (mean±sd) were 4.4±13.1%, 3.3±11.8%, −20.6±11% (p<0.0001) and −10.5±10.9% (p=0.005) using WIMR, EM, ndd v.2.00 and ndd v.2.01, respectively. Direct device comparison highlighted important differences in measurement accuracy. FRC discrepancies between devices were larger in vivo, compared to in vitro results; however, the pattern of difference was similar. These results represent progress in ongoing standardisation efforts. European Respiratory Society 2017-10-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5703358/ /pubmed/29204436 http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00011-2017 Text en Copyright ©ERS 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Tonga, Katrina O.
Robinson, Paul D.
Farah, Claude S.
King, Greg G.
Thamrin, Cindy
In vitro and in vivo functional residual capacity comparisons between multiple-breath nitrogen washout devices
title In vitro and in vivo functional residual capacity comparisons between multiple-breath nitrogen washout devices
title_full In vitro and in vivo functional residual capacity comparisons between multiple-breath nitrogen washout devices
title_fullStr In vitro and in vivo functional residual capacity comparisons between multiple-breath nitrogen washout devices
title_full_unstemmed In vitro and in vivo functional residual capacity comparisons between multiple-breath nitrogen washout devices
title_short In vitro and in vivo functional residual capacity comparisons between multiple-breath nitrogen washout devices
title_sort in vitro and in vivo functional residual capacity comparisons between multiple-breath nitrogen washout devices
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5703358/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29204436
http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00011-2017
work_keys_str_mv AT tongakatrinao invitroandinvivofunctionalresidualcapacitycomparisonsbetweenmultiplebreathnitrogenwashoutdevices
AT robinsonpauld invitroandinvivofunctionalresidualcapacitycomparisonsbetweenmultiplebreathnitrogenwashoutdevices
AT farahclaudes invitroandinvivofunctionalresidualcapacitycomparisonsbetweenmultiplebreathnitrogenwashoutdevices
AT kinggregg invitroandinvivofunctionalresidualcapacitycomparisonsbetweenmultiplebreathnitrogenwashoutdevices
AT thamrincindy invitroandinvivofunctionalresidualcapacitycomparisonsbetweenmultiplebreathnitrogenwashoutdevices