Automated metabolic gas analysis systems: a review.

The use of automated metabolic gas analysis systems or metabolic measurement carts (MMC) in exercise studies is common throughout the industrialised world. They have become essential tools for diagnosing many hospital patients, especially those with cardiorespiratory disease. Moreover, the measurement of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) is routine for many athletes in fitness laboratories and has become a defacto standard in spite of its limitations. The development of metabolic carts has also facilitated the noninvasive determination of the lactate threshold and cardiac output, respiratory gas exchange kinetics, as well as studies of outdoor activities via small portable systems that often use telemetry. Although the fundamental principles behind the measurement of oxygen uptake (VO2) and carbon dioxide production (VCO2) have not changed, the techniques used have, and indeed, some have almost turned through a full circle. Early scientists often employed a manual Douglas bag method together with separate chemical analyses, but the need for faster and more efficient techniques fuelled the development of semi- and full-automated systems by private and commercial institutions. Yet, recently some scientists are returning back to the traditional Douglas bag or Tissot-spirometer methods, or are using less complex automated systems to not only save capital costs, but also to have greater control over the measurement process. Over the last 40 years, a considerable number of automated systems have been developed, with over a dozen commercial manufacturers producing in excess of 20 different automated systems. The validity and reliability of all these different systems is not well known, with relatively few independent studies having been published in this area. For comparative studies to be possible and to facilitate greater consistency of measurements in test-retest or longitudinal studies of individuals, further knowledge about the performance characteristics of these systems is needed. Such information, along with the costs and the common features associated with these systems, may aid physicians and scientists to select a system that is best suited to their requirements and may also improve the quality of these frequently-reported physiological measures.