Journal of Applied Physiology Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Appl Physiol 68: 1443-1452, 1990;
8750-7587/90 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kallay, M. C.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kallay, M. C.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, R. J.

Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 68, Issue 4 1443-1452, Copyright © 1990 by American Physiological Society


ARTICLES

Assessment of rebreathing O2 consumption in humans with normal and diseased lungs

M. C. Kallay, R. W. Hyde and R. J. Smith
Department of Medicine and Toxicology, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, New York 14642.

We investigated sources of error in estimating steady-state O2 consumption (VO2ss) by calculating O2 uptake from an anesthesia bag containing O2, He, and N2 during 10-20 s of rebreathing (VO2rb). In 11 normal resting subjects, VO2rb calculated with end-tidal sampling overestimated VO2ss by 16 +/- 15% (SD) (P less than 0.003). This error was proportional to the increase in pulse rate during rebreathing, so that pulse-corrected VO2rb slightly underestimated VO2ss by 2.1 +/- 12.2% (P = 0.66) in the six subjects who rebreathed 28% O2 in the rebreathing bag but significantly underestimated VO2ss by 7.5 +/- 6.7% (P less than 0.04) in the six subjects who rebreathed 21% O2 in the rebreathing bag. During exercise, VO2rb underestimated VO2ss by 4 +/- 12% (P less than 0.001) and by 7 +/- 6% at O2 consumptions greater than 2,000 ml/min if O2 in the rebreathing bag was kept above 20% throughout rebreathing. We found that VO2rb calculated with end-tidal gas concentrations underestimated VO2ss by 1-43% in patients with moderate-to-severe obstructive lung disease, with even greater errors when mixed expired samples were used. The magnitude of the discrepancy correlated poorly with abnormalities in standard pulmonary function tests. Based on these data, VO2rb closely approximates VO2ss in normal subjects, provided hypoxia during rebreathing is avoided and cardiac acceleration from rebreathing is taken into account during resting measurement.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online