RESUMEN
Multiple breath washout (MBW) has successfully assessed the silent lung zone particularly in cystic fibrosis lung disease, however, it is limited to the communicating lung only. There are a number of different pulmonary function methods that can assess what is commonly referred to as trapped air, with varying approaches and sensitivity. Twenty-five people with cystic fibrosis (pwCF) underwent MBW, spirometry, body plethysmography, and spirometry-controlled computed tomography (spiro-CT) on the same day. PwCF also performed extensions to MBW that evaluate air trapping, including our novel extension (MBWShX), which reveals the extent of under-ventilated lung units (UVLU). Additionally, we used 2 previously established 5-breath methods that provide a volume of trapped gas (VTG). We used trapped air % from spiro-CT as the gold standard for comparison. UVLU derived from MBWShX showed the best agreement with trapped air %, both in terms of correlation (RS 0.89, P<0.0001) and sensitivity (79%). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a significant underestimation of the VTG by both 5-breath methods (-249ml [95%CI -10796; 580ml] and -203ml [95%CI -997;591ml], respectively). Parameters from both spirometry and body plethysmography were sub-optimal at assessing this pathophysiology. The parameters from MBWShX demonstrated the best relationship with spiro-CT and had the best sensitivity compared to the other pulmonary function methods assessed in this study. MBWShX shows promise to assess and monitor this critical pathophysiological feature, which has been shown to be a driver of lung disease progression in pwCF.
RESUMEN
Recently, a cross-talk error with commercial multiple breath nitrogen washout (MBWN2 ) software was discovered, which produced an absolute over-reading of N2 of approximately 1%, i.e., 2% N2 read as 3%. This caused an extended tail to the washout, and over-estimated lung clearance index (LCI2.5 ) values. Subsequently an updated and corrected software version has been released. Within the field there have been discussions on how to correct legacy data, whether to migrate or completely "rerun" raw data A-files from the old software into the new corrected software. To our knowledge, no research has been published assessing whether either method is equivalent to directly collecting data in the new corrected software. We prospectively recruited 19 participants, 10 adult healthy controls and 9 people with cystic fibrosis (CF). MBWN2 was performed using the Exhalyzer® D first on the old 3.1.6 software and next, directly on corrected 3.3.1 software. Multiple breath washout (MBW) data directly collected in 3.3.1 was significantly different from both migrated and rerun data. A total of 7 of the 19 participants (37%; 4 CF) had a relative difference in LCI2.5 > 10% for both migrated and rerun data compared to 3.3.1 collected data. Our findings have implications for the Global Lung Initiative MBW project, which is accepting a combination of directly collected, A-file reruns and migrated data to establish normative values. Further, caution must be used in clinical practice when comparing corrected legacy data versus 3.3.1 collected data for clinical interpretation. We recommend that a new baseline is collected directly on 3.3.1. before clinical interpretation and decisions are determined when comparing consecutive MBW tests.