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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |