Literature DB >> 24150129

Lack of agreement between gas exchange variables measured by two metabolic systems.

Djordje G Jakovljevic1, David Nunan, Gay Donovan, Lynette D Hodges, Gavin R H Sandercock, David A Brodie.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the agreement and consistency between gas exchange variables measured by two online metabolic systems during an incremental exercise test. After obtaining local ethics approval and informed consent, 15 healthy subjects performed an incremental exercise test to volitional fatigue using the Bruce protocol. The Innocor (Innovision, Denmark) and CardiO2 (Medical Graphics, USA) systems were placed in series, with the Innocor mouthpiece attached to the pneumotach of the CardiO2. Metabolic data were analysed during the last 30 seconds of each stage and at peak exercise. There were non- significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two systems in estimation of oxygen consumption (VO2) and in minute ventilation (VE). Mean Cronbach's alpha for VO2 and VE were 0.88 and 0.92. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed that limits of agreement were -0.52 to 0.55 l.min(-1) for VO2, and -8.74 to 10.66 l.min(-1) for VE. Carbon dioxide production (VCO2) and consequently respiratory exchange ratio (RER) measured by the Innocor were significantly lower (p < 0.05) through all stages. The CardiO2 measured fraction of expired carbon dioxide (FeCO2) significantly higher (p < 0.05). The limits of agreement for VO2 and VE are wide and unacceptable in cardio-pulmonary exercise testing. The Innocor reported VCO2 systematically lower. Therefore the Innocor and CardiO2 metabolic systems cannot be used interchangeably without affecting the diagnosis of an individual patient. Results from the present study support previous suggestion that considerable care is needed when comparing metabolic data obtained from different automated metabolic systems. Key pointsThere is general concern regarding the limited knowledge available about the accuracy of a number of commercially available systems.Demonstrated limits of agreement between key gas exchange variables (oxygen consumption and minute ventilation) as measured by the two metabolic systems were wide and unacceptable in cardio-pulmonary exercise testing.Considerable care is needed when comparing metabolic data obtained from different automated metabolic systems.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bruce protocol; Metabolic system; carbon dioxide production; minute ventilation; oxygen consumption

Year:  2008        PMID: 24150129      PMCID: PMC3763340     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sports Sci Med        ISSN: 1303-2968            Impact factor:   2.988


  17 in total

1.  Response-time enhancement of a clinical gas analyzer facilitates measurement of breath-by-breath gas exchange.

Authors:  A D Farmery; C E Hahn
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2000-08

2.  Validation of the COSMED K4 b2 portable metabolic system.

Authors:  J E McLaughlin; G A King; E T Howley; D R Bassett; B E Ainsworth
Journal:  Int J Sports Med       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.118

Review 3.  Validity and reliability of selected commercially available metabolic analyzer systems.

Authors:  L D Hodges; D A Brodie; P D Bromley
Journal:  Scand J Med Sci Sports       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.221

Review 4.  Automated metabolic gas analysis systems: a review.

Authors:  D J Macfarlane
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 11.136

5.  Validity of oxygen uptake measurements during exercise under moderate hyperoxia.

Authors:  F Prieur; T Busso; J Castells; R Bonnefoy; H Benoit; A Geyssant; C Denis
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 5.411

6.  Validity and reliability of three commercially available breath-by-breath respiratory systems.

Authors:  James Carter; Asker E Jeukendrup
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2002-02-05       Impact factor: 3.078

7.  Validity of inspiratory and expiratory methods of measuring gas exchange with a computerized system.

Authors:  D R Bassett; E T Howley; D L Thompson; G A King; S J Strath; J E McLaughlin; B B Parr
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2001-07

8.  On-line computer analysis and breath-by-breath graphical display of exercise function tests.

Authors:  W L Beaver; K Wasserman; B J Whipp
Journal:  J Appl Physiol       Date:  1973-01       Impact factor: 3.531

9.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion.

Authors:  G A Borg
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 5.411

View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparison of metabolic gas analysis between a standard laboratory system and a portable device.

Authors:  Leah C Stroud; Alan H Feiveson; Robert Ploutz-Snyder; John K De Witt; Meghan E Everett; Michael L Gernhardt
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 2.988

2.  The validity of the Moxus Modular metabolic system during incremental exercise tests: impacts on detection of small changes in oxygen consumption.

Authors:  Fernando G Beltrami; Christian Froyd; Asgeir Mamen; Timothy D Noakes
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2014-01-30       Impact factor: 3.078

3.  Inter- and intra-unit reliability of the COSMED K5: Implications for multicentric and longitudinal testing.

Authors:  Kay Winkert; Rupert Kamnig; Johannes Kirsten; Jürgen M Steinacker; Gunnar Treff
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.