Intra-session and inter-session variability of nitric oxide pulmonary diffusing capacity in adults with cystic fibrosis

Reproducibility of pulmonary function tests in patients with systemic sclerosis

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare autoimmune disease in which interstitial lung disease (ILD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Clinical management of the lung disease is mainly based on pulmonary function testing (PFT) and their changes over time. Little is known about the reproducibility of PFT testing in SSc patients. The aim of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability and reproducibility of PFTs in SSc patients with or without ILD over 30 days in order determine the potential physiologic variation over the time. We performed prospective observational study of SSc patients. The FVC, FEV1/FVC ratio, DLCO and KCO parameters were assessed in this population at four different timepoints; T0 (time 0) and H3 (T0 + 3 h) defined test-retest reliability, D15 (T0 + 15 days) and D30 (T0 + 30 days) for reproducibility. A mixed linear model was used to test the effect of time (and therefore reproducibility) on patients and we looked for an interaction. We included 25 SSc patients divided in two groups, 14 with ILD and 11 non-ILD. Interactions between time and group were not significant and were not reported. Time and group did not significantly influence the different measures of the PFT: FVC [p values time and group effect respectively (0.33; 0.34)], FEV1/FVC ratio (0.093; 0.056) and DLCO (0.99; 0.13) in the ILD and non ILD group (Table S2). The analyse with interactions between time and group were not significant and are not reported. We also used a Bland Altman test to assess reproducibility for FVC (L) and DLCO (mMKpa/min/L), Figs. 1 and 2 respectively. The measurements were therefore reproducible over time and in each group. PFT parameters are reproducible over time in a clinically stable population of SSc (no significant effect of the time T0, H3, D15 and D30) and there is no significant distinction between patients with ILD and no ILD. These respiratory functional data can further underline their use in clinical practice.

Reference equations for pulmonary diffusing capacity using segmented regression show similar predictive accuracy as GAMLSS models

Purpose

To determine whether generalised additive models of location, scale and shape (GAMLSS) developed for pulmonary diffusing capacity are superior to segmented (piecewise) regression models, and to update reference equations for pulmonary diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) and nitric oxide (DLNO), which may be affected by the equipment used for its measurement.

Methods

Data were pooled from five studies that developed reference equations for DLCO and DLNO (n=530 F/546 M; 5–95 years old, body mass index 12.4–39.0 kg/m²). Reference equations were created for DLCO and DLNO using both GAMLSS and segmented linear regression. Cross-validation was applied to compare the prediction accuracy of the two models as follows: 80% of the pooled data were used to create the equations, and the remaining 20% was used to examine the fit. This was repeated 100 times. Then, the root-mean-square error was compared between both models.

Results

In males, GAMLSS models were 7% worse to 3% better compared to segmented regression for DLCO and DLNO. In females, GAMLSS models were 2% worse to 5% better compared to segmented linear regression for DLCO and DLNO. The Hyp'Air Compact measured DLNO and alveolar volume (VA) that was approximately 16–20 mL/min/mm Hg and 0.2–0.4 L higher, respectively, compared to the Jaeger MasterScreen Pro. The measured DLCO was similar between devices after controlling for altitude.

Conclusions

For the development of pulmonary function reference equations, we propose that segmented linear regression can be used instead of GAMLSS due to its simplicity, especially when the predictive accuracy is similar between the two models, overall.

Lung diffusing capacity for nitric oxide measured by two commercial devices: a randomised crossover comparison in healthy adults

In Europe, two commercial devices are available to measure combined single-breath diffusing capacity of the lung for nitric oxide (D_LNO) and carbon monoxide (D_LCO) in one manoeuvre. Reference values were derived by pooling datasets from both devices, but agreement between devices has not been established.

We conducted a randomised crossover trial in 35 healthy adults (age 40.0±15.5 years, 51% female) to compare D_LNO (primary end-point) between MasterScreen™ (Vyaire Medical, Mettawa, IL, USA) and HypAir (Medisoft, Dinant, Belgium) devices during a single visit under controlled conditions. Linear mixed models were used adjusting for device and period as fixed effects and random intercept for each participant.

Difference in D_LNO between HypAir and MasterScreen was 24.0 mL·min⁻¹·mmHg⁻¹ (95% CI 21.7–26.3). There was no difference in D_LCO (−0.03 mL·min⁻¹·mmHg⁻¹, 95% CI −0.57–0.12) between devices while alveolar volume (V_A) was higher on HypAir compared to MasterScreen™ (0.48 L, 95% CI 0.45–0.52). Disparity in the estimation of V_A and the rate of NO uptake (K_NO=D_LNO/V_A) could explain the discrepancy in D_LNO between devices. Disparity in the estimation of V_A and the rate of CO uptake (K_CO=D_LCO/V_A) per unit of V_A offset each other resulting in negligible discrepancy in D_LCO between devices. Differences in methods of expiratory gas sampling and sensor specifications between devices likely explain these observations.

These findings have important implications for derivation of D_LNO reference values and comparison of results across studies. Until this issue is resolved, reference values, established on the respective devices, should be used for test interpretation.

Large discrepancies between commercial devices to measure single-breath diffusing capacity of the lung for nitric oxide in healthy subjects caution against pooling or direct comparison of measurements obtained using different protocols and deviceshttps://bit.ly/3vKyF7U

Assessment of concordance between diffusion of carbon monoxide through the lung using the 10 s breath-hold method, and the simultaneous NO/CO technique, in healthy participants

INTRODUCTION

There is limited, large sample size, healthy control data comparing measurement of diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) via the 10 s single-breath carbon monoxide uptake method (DLCO₁₀) and using a DLCO-DLNO double diffusion test performed with a 5 s time of apnoea (DLCO₅).

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to compare DLCO₅ and DLCO₁₀ in healthy participants. The secondary objective was to evaluate the reproducibility of DLCO₅.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We included medical students at Caen University Hospital, from 2008 to 2011. We performed a standard single-breath carbon monoxide uptake and combined DLCO and DLNO measurement for each participant. The combined test was repeated one week later.

RESULTS

Among the 153 study participants, there was no statistically significant difference between the mean values of DLCO₁₀ (10.2 ± 2.2 mmol.min^-1 kPa^-1) and DLCO₅ (10.3 ± 2.2 mmol.min^-1 kPa^-1; paired t-test p = 0.19). Corrected for the same FiO₂, DLCO₅ was calculated at 10.5 ± 2.3 mmol.min^-1 kPa^-1 and was significantly different from DLCO₁₀ (paired t-test p < 0.001). DLCO₅ deviates from 1,6 mmol.min^-1 kPa^-1 (4,6 mL.min^-1. mmHg^-1) or 15 % of DLCO₁₀ (17 % above and 13% below, for 95 % of the subjects). Forty-seven participants were included in the DLCO₅ reproducibility test. The 2 test sessions were carried out at 6 ± 2 day intervals. Reproducibilities for DLCO, DLNO, DmCO and Vc was respectively 1.2 (11 %), 6.8 (13%), 16.5 (32 %), 12.5 (17 %) mmol.min^-1 kPa^-1.

CONCLUSION

In healthy participants, discrepancies between DLCO measured during the double diffusion and DLCO measured on an apnoea of 10 s are quite large. It may be an indication that the Roughton and Forster interpretation to describe this type of measurements is inadequate.

Combined diffusing capacity for nitric oxide and carbon monoxide as predictor of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome following lung transplantation

BACKGROUND

There is a need for non-invasive parameters that are sensitive to the development of the bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) in lung transplantation (LTx) patients. We studied whether the pulmonary diffusing capacity for inhaled nitric oxide is capable of detecting BOS stages.

METHODS

Sixty-one LTx patients were included into this cross-sectional study (19/29/7/3/3 in BOS stages 0/0-p/1/2/3). For analysis stages 0/0-p versus 1/2/3 ("BOS binary-early"), and stages 0/0-p/1 versus 2/3 ("BOS binary-late") were summarized. Measurements of the combined diffusing capacity for nitric oxide (DLNO) and carbon monoxide (DLCO) were compared with spirometry and bodyplethysmography, and their relative importance was evaluated by discriminant analysis.

RESULTS

Regarding the recognition of "BOS binary-early", among spirometric parameters forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) was best, among bodyplethysmographic parameters airway resistance, and among diffusing parameters DLNO. Regarding "BOS binary-late", DLNO was inferior to bodyplethysmographic parameters.

CONCLUSION

Although the study comprised only measurements at a single time point and no follow-up, DLNO outperformed FEV1, the time course of which is used in detecting BOS. Together with its pathophysiological plausibility, this result suggests that the measurement of DLNO, possibly over time, could be an easily applicable tool for the monitoring of LTx patients and should be evaluated in larger studies.

Acute effects of combined exercise and oscillatory positive expiratory pressure therapy on sputum properties and lung diffusing capacity in cystic fibrosis: a randomized, controlled, crossover trial

Background

Regular airway clearance by chest physiotherapy and/or exercise is critical to lung health in cystic fibrosis (CF). Combination of cycling exercise and chest physiotherapy using the Flutter® device on sputum properties has not yet been investigated.

Methods

This prospective, randomized crossover study compared a single bout of continuous cycling exercise at moderate intensity (experiment A, control condition) vs a combination of interval cycling exercise plus Flutter® (experiment B). Sputum properties (viscoelasticity, yield stress, solids content, spinnability, and ease of sputum expectoration), pulmonary diffusing capacity for nitric oxide (DLNO) and carbon monoxide (DLCO) were assessed at rest, directly and 45 min post-exercise (recovery) at 2 consecutive visits. Primary outcome was change in sputum viscoelasticity (G’, storage modulus; G”, loss modulus) over a broad frequency range (0.1–100 rad.s^− 1).

Results

15 adults with CF (FEV₁range 24–94% predicted) completed all experiments. No consistent differences between experiments were observed for G’ and G” and other sputum properties, except for ease of sputum expectoration during recovery favoring experiment A. DLNO, DLCO, alveolar volume (V_A) and pulmonary capillary blood volume (V_cap) increased during experiment A, while DLCO and V_cap increased during experiment B (all P < 0.05). We found no differences in absolute changes in pulmonary diffusing capacity and its components between experiments, except a higher V_A immediately post-exercise favoring experiment A (P = 0.032).

Conclusions

The additional use of the Flutter® to moderate intensity interval cycling exercise has no measurable effect on the viscoelastic properties of sputum compared to moderate intensity continuous cycling alone. Elevations in diffusing capacity represent an acute exercise-induced effect not sustained post-exercise.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02750722; URL: clinical.trials.gov; Registration date: April 25th, 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12890-018-0661-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.