HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free All Versions of this Article: 99/5/1985    most recent 00348.2005v1 Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Snyder, E. M. Articles by Beck, K. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Snyder, E. M. Articles by Beck, K. C.

INNOVATIVE METHODOLOGY

An open-circuit method for determining lung diffusing capacity during exercise: comparison to rebreathe

¹Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota; and ²Physiological Imaging, Department of Radiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

Submitted 25 March 2005 ; accepted in final form 10 July 2005

To avoid limitations associated with the use of single-breath and rebreathe methods for assessing the lung diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DL_CO) during exercise, we developed an open-circuit technique. This method does not require rebreathing or alterations in breathing pattern and can be performed with little cognition on the part of the patient. To determine how this technique compared with the traditional rebreathe (DL_CO,RB) method, we performed both the open-circuit (DL_CO,OC) and the DL_CO,RB methods at rest and during exercise (25, 50, and 75% of peak work) in 11 healthy subjects [mean age = 34 yr (SD 11)]. Both DL_CO,OC and DL_CO,RB increased linearly with cardiac output and external work. There was a good correlation between DL_CO,OC and DL_CO,RB for rest and exercise (mean of individual r² = 0.88, overall r² = 0.69, slope = 0.97). DL_CO,OC and DL_CO,RB were similar at rest and during exercise [e.g., rest = 27.2 (SD 5.8) vs. 29.3 (SD 5.2), and 75% peak work = 44.0 (SD 7.0) vs. 41.2 ml·min^–1·mmHg^–1 (SD 6.7) for DL_CO,OC vs. DL_CO,RB]. The coefficient of variation for repeat measurements of DL_CO,OC was 7.9% at rest and averaged 3.9% during exercise. These data suggest that the DL_CO,OC method is a reproducible, well-tolerated alternative for determining DL_CO, particularly during exercise. The method is linearly associated with cardiac output, suggesting increased alveolar-capillary recruitment, and values were similar to the traditional rebreathe method.

carbon monoxide; gas exchange; lung surface area