Journal of Applied Physiology Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Appl Physiol 79: 1032-1038, 1995;
8750-7587/95 $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 Hornby, L.
Right arrow Articles by Lands, L. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hornby, L.
Right arrow Articles by Lands, L. C.

Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 79, Issue 3 1032-1038, Copyright © 1995 by American Physiological Society


ARTICLES

Effect of analyzer on determination of mixed venous PCO2 and cardiac output during exercise

L. Hornby, A. L. Coates and L. C. Lands
Division of Respiratory Medicine, Montreal Children's Hospital-McGill University, Quebec, Canada.

Cardiac output (CO) during exercise can be determined noninvasively by using the indirect Fick CO2-rebreathing technique. CO2 measurements for this technique are usually performed with an infrared analyzer (IA) or mass spectrometer (MS). However, IA CO2 measurements are susceptible to underreading in the face of high O2 concentrations because of collision broadening. We compared an IA (Ametek model CD-3A) with a MS (Marquette model MGA-1100) to see the effect this would have on mixed venous PCO2 (PVCO2) and CO measurements. After calibration with room air and a gas mixture of 5% CO2-12% O2-83% N2, both devices were tested with three different gas mixtures of CO2 in O2. For each gas mixture, IA gave lower CO2 values than did the MS (4.1% CO2: IA, 3.85 +/- 0.01% and MS, 4.13 +/- 0.01%; 9.2% CO2: IA, 8.44 +/- 0.07% and MS, 9.19 +/- 0.01%; 13.8% CO2: IA, 12.57 +/- 0.15% and MS, 13.82 +/- 0.01%). Warming and humidifying the gases did not alter the results. The IA gave lower values than did the MS for eight other medical gases in lower concentrations of O2 (40-50%). Equilibrium and exponential rebreathing procedures were performed. Values determined by the IA were > 10% higher than those determined by the MS for both rebreathing methods. We conclude that all IAs must be checked for collision broadening if they are to be used in environments where the concentration of O2 is > 21%. If collision broadening is present, then either a special high O2-CO2 calibration curve must be constructed, or the IA should not be used for both arterial PCO2 and PVCO2 estimates because it may produce erroneously low PVCO2 values, with resultant overestimation of CO.





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