Comparison of carbon monoxide (CO) single breath pulmonary diffusing capacity with non-rebreathing, open-circuit CO pulmonary diffusing capacity in healthy children

Oscar Suman, Suchmor Thomas, Kenneth C. Beck, Ronald P. Mlcak, David Herndon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: The standard technique for assessing pulmonary diffusing capacity of the lungs (DL) for carbon monoxide (CO) is the single breath (SB) technique. SB_DLco in children can be problematic because it requires a vital capacity > 1.5 L. We have developed an open-circuit technique (OC), which uses the wash-in of CO over a series of 8-10 normal breaths that does not require rebreathing. In this study, we compared the SB_DLco against the OC_DLco. Methods: Nineteen healthy children between 7 and 18 years performed SB_DLco and OC_DLco tests. The mean SB_DLco was significantly larger than the mean OC_DLco. The mean difference OC_DLco minus SB_DLco was: -2.92 ± 4.21 ml/min/mm Hg, though the difference was negatively correlated with the mean of the two (r = 0.73). The lower mean OC_DLco was in part due to lower lung volume (as measured by alveolar volume (VA)) during the maneuver. In both groups there was a positive correlation between VA and DLco, and the mean VA was -2.17 ± 1.07 L lower using OC compared to SB. The difference was again negatively correlated with the mean (r = 0.82). The mean OC minus SB difference in DLco/VA was: 6.06 ± 1.98 ml/min/mm Hg/L, though this difference was positively correlated with the mean, r = 0.76. Conclusions: We found a good correlation between both techniques for DLco, VA, and DLco/VA. The OC offers the advantage of minimal subject cooperation, and may be preferable to use in children.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1095-1102
Number of pages8
JournalPediatric Pulmonology
Volume41
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2006

Fingerprint

Pulmonary Diffusing Capacity
Carbon Monoxide
Lung
Vital Capacity

Keywords

  • Pediatric
  • Pulmonary diffusing capacity
  • Single breath diffusing capacity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of carbon monoxide (CO) single breath pulmonary diffusing capacity with non-rebreathing, open-circuit CO pulmonary diffusing capacity in healthy children. / Suman, Oscar; Thomas, Suchmor; Beck, Kenneth C.; Mlcak, Ronald P.; Herndon, David.

In: Pediatric Pulmonology, Vol. 41, No. 11, 11.2006, p. 1095-1102.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b49162047d2243a3b4bbdefcd8104202,
title = "Comparison of carbon monoxide (CO) single breath pulmonary diffusing capacity with non-rebreathing, open-circuit CO pulmonary diffusing capacity in healthy children",
abstract = "Introduction: The standard technique for assessing pulmonary diffusing capacity of the lungs (DL) for carbon monoxide (CO) is the single breath (SB) technique. SB_DLco in children can be problematic because it requires a vital capacity > 1.5 L. We have developed an open-circuit technique (OC), which uses the wash-in of CO over a series of 8-10 normal breaths that does not require rebreathing. In this study, we compared the SB_DLco against the OC_DLco. Methods: Nineteen healthy children between 7 and 18 years performed SB_DLco and OC_DLco tests. The mean SB_DLco was significantly larger than the mean OC_DLco. The mean difference OC_DLco minus SB_DLco was: -2.92 ± 4.21 ml/min/mm Hg, though the difference was negatively correlated with the mean of the two (r = 0.73). The lower mean OC_DLco was in part due to lower lung volume (as measured by alveolar volume (VA)) during the maneuver. In both groups there was a positive correlation between VA and DLco, and the mean VA was -2.17 ± 1.07 L lower using OC compared to SB. The difference was again negatively correlated with the mean (r = 0.82). The mean OC minus SB difference in DLco/VA was: 6.06 ± 1.98 ml/min/mm Hg/L, though this difference was positively correlated with the mean, r = 0.76. Conclusions: We found a good correlation between both techniques for DLco, VA, and DLco/VA. The OC offers the advantage of minimal subject cooperation, and may be preferable to use in children.",
keywords = "Pediatric, Pulmonary diffusing capacity, Single breath diffusing capacity",
author = "Oscar Suman and Suchmor Thomas and Beck, {Kenneth C.} and Mlcak, {Ronald P.} and David Herndon",
year = "2006",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1002/ppul.20504",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "1095--1102",
journal = "Pediatric Pulmonology",
issn = "8755-6863",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of carbon monoxide (CO) single breath pulmonary diffusing capacity with non-rebreathing, open-circuit CO pulmonary diffusing capacity in healthy children

AU - Suman, Oscar

AU - Thomas, Suchmor

AU - Beck, Kenneth C.

AU - Mlcak, Ronald P.

AU - Herndon, David

PY - 2006/11

Y1 - 2006/11

N2 - Introduction: The standard technique for assessing pulmonary diffusing capacity of the lungs (DL) for carbon monoxide (CO) is the single breath (SB) technique. SB_DLco in children can be problematic because it requires a vital capacity > 1.5 L. We have developed an open-circuit technique (OC), which uses the wash-in of CO over a series of 8-10 normal breaths that does not require rebreathing. In this study, we compared the SB_DLco against the OC_DLco. Methods: Nineteen healthy children between 7 and 18 years performed SB_DLco and OC_DLco tests. The mean SB_DLco was significantly larger than the mean OC_DLco. The mean difference OC_DLco minus SB_DLco was: -2.92 ± 4.21 ml/min/mm Hg, though the difference was negatively correlated with the mean of the two (r = 0.73). The lower mean OC_DLco was in part due to lower lung volume (as measured by alveolar volume (VA)) during the maneuver. In both groups there was a positive correlation between VA and DLco, and the mean VA was -2.17 ± 1.07 L lower using OC compared to SB. The difference was again negatively correlated with the mean (r = 0.82). The mean OC minus SB difference in DLco/VA was: 6.06 ± 1.98 ml/min/mm Hg/L, though this difference was positively correlated with the mean, r = 0.76. Conclusions: We found a good correlation between both techniques for DLco, VA, and DLco/VA. The OC offers the advantage of minimal subject cooperation, and may be preferable to use in children.

AB - Introduction: The standard technique for assessing pulmonary diffusing capacity of the lungs (DL) for carbon monoxide (CO) is the single breath (SB) technique. SB_DLco in children can be problematic because it requires a vital capacity > 1.5 L. We have developed an open-circuit technique (OC), which uses the wash-in of CO over a series of 8-10 normal breaths that does not require rebreathing. In this study, we compared the SB_DLco against the OC_DLco. Methods: Nineteen healthy children between 7 and 18 years performed SB_DLco and OC_DLco tests. The mean SB_DLco was significantly larger than the mean OC_DLco. The mean difference OC_DLco minus SB_DLco was: -2.92 ± 4.21 ml/min/mm Hg, though the difference was negatively correlated with the mean of the two (r = 0.73). The lower mean OC_DLco was in part due to lower lung volume (as measured by alveolar volume (VA)) during the maneuver. In both groups there was a positive correlation between VA and DLco, and the mean VA was -2.17 ± 1.07 L lower using OC compared to SB. The difference was again negatively correlated with the mean (r = 0.82). The mean OC minus SB difference in DLco/VA was: 6.06 ± 1.98 ml/min/mm Hg/L, though this difference was positively correlated with the mean, r = 0.76. Conclusions: We found a good correlation between both techniques for DLco, VA, and DLco/VA. The OC offers the advantage of minimal subject cooperation, and may be preferable to use in children.

KW - Pediatric

KW - Pulmonary diffusing capacity

KW - Single breath diffusing capacity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750972886&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33750972886&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/ppul.20504

DO - 10.1002/ppul.20504

M3 - Article

C2 - 16986167

AN - SCOPUS:33750972886

VL - 41

SP - 1095

EP - 1102

JO - Pediatric Pulmonology

JF - Pediatric Pulmonology

SN - 8755-6863

IS - 11

ER -