Accuracy of respiratory gas variables, substrate, and energy use from 15 CPET systems during simulated and human exercise.

PURPOSE: Various systems are available for cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), but their accuracy remains largely unexplored. We evaluate the accuracy of 15 popular CPET systems to assess respiratory variables, substrate use, and energy expenditure during simulated exercise. Cross-comparisons were also performed during human cycling experiments (i.e., verification of simulation findings), and between-session reliability was assessed for a subset of systems. METHODS: A metabolic simulator was used to simulate breath-by-breath gas exchange, and the values measured by each system (minute ventilation [V̇E], breathing frequency [BF], oxygen uptake [V̇O2 ], carbon dioxide production [V̇CO2 ], respiratory exchange ratio [RER], energy from carbs and fats, and total energy expenditure) were compared to the simulated values to assess the accuracy. The following manufacturers (system) were assessed: COSMED (Quark CPET, K5), Cortex (MetaLyzer 3B, MetaMax 3B), Vyaire (Vyntus CPX, Oxycon Pro), Maastricht Instruments (Omnical), MGC Diagnostics (Ergocard Clinical, Ergocard Pro, Ultima), Ganshorn/Schiller (PowerCube Ergo), Geratherm (Ergostik), VO2master (VO2masterPro), PNOE (PNOE), and Calibre Biometrics (Calibre). RESULTS: Absolute percentage errors during the simulations ranged from 1.15%-44.3% for V̇E, 1.05-3.79% for BF, 1.10%-13.3% for V̇O2 , 1.07%-18.3% for V̇CO2 , 0.62%-14.8% for RER, 5.52%-99.0% for Kcal from carbs, 5.13%-133% for Kcal from fats, and 0.59%-12.1% for total energy expenditure. Between-session variation ranged from 0.86%-21.0% for V̇O2 and 1.14%-20.2% for V̇CO2 , respectively. CONCLUSION: The error of respiratory gas variables, substrate, and energy use differed substantially between systems, with only a few systems demonstrating a consistent acceptable error. We extensively discuss the implications of our findings for clinicians, researchers and other CPET users.

The efficacy of a home-use metabolic device (Lumen) in response to a short-term low and high carbohydrate diet in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Based on stoichiometric assumptions, and real-time assessment of expired carbon dioxide (%CO2) and flow rate, the Lumen device provides potential for consumers/athletes to monitor metabolic responses to dietary programs outside of laboratory conditions. However, there is a paucity of research exploring device efficacy. This study aimed to evaluate Lumen device response to: i) a high-carbohydrate meal under laboratory conditions, and ii) a short-term low- or high-carbohydrate diet in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Following institutional ethical approval, 12 healthy volunteers (age: 36 ± 4 yrs; body mass: 72.1 ± 3.6 kg; height: 1.71 ± 0.02 m) performed Lumen breath and Douglas bag expired air measures under fasted laboratory conditions and at 30 and 60 min after a high-carbohydrate (2 g·kg-1) meal, along with capilliarized blood glucose assessment. Data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA, with ordinary least squares regression used to assess the model between Lumen expired carbon dioxide percentage (L%CO2) and respiratory exchange ratio (RER). In a separate phase, 27 recreationally active adults (age: 42 ± 2 yrs; body mass: 71.9 ± 1.9 kg; height: 1.72 ± 0.02 m) completed a 7-day low- (~20% of energy intake [EI]; LOW) or high-carbohydrate diet (~60% of EI; HIGH) in a randomized, cross-over design under free-living conditions. L%CO2 and derived Lumen Index (LI) were recorded daily across morning (fasted and post-breakfast) and evening (pre/post meal, pre-bed) periods. Repeated measures ANOVA were employed for main analyses, with Bonferroni post-hoc assessment applied (P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Following the carbohydrate test-meal, L%CO2 increased from 4.49 ± 0.05% to 4.80 ± 0.06% by 30 min, remaining elevated at 4.76 ± 0.06% by 60 min post-feeding (P < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.74). Similarly, RER increased by 18.1% from 0.77 ± 0.03 to 0.91 ± 0.02 by 30 min post-meal (P = 0.002). When considering peak data, regression analysis demonstrated a significant model effect between RER and L%CO2 (F = 5.62, P = 0.03, R2 = 0.20). Following main dietary interventions, no significant interactions (diet × day) were found. However, main diet effects were evident across all time-points assessed, highlighting significant differences for both L%CO2 and LI between LOW and HIGH conditions (P < 0.003). For L%CO2, this was particularly noted under fasted (4.35 ± 0.07 vs. 4.46 ± 0.06%, P = 0.001), pre-evening meal (4.35 ± 0.07 vs. 4.50 ± 0.06%, P < 0.001), and pre-bed time-points (4.51 ± 0.08 vs. 4.61 ± 0.06%, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated that a portable, home-use metabolic device (Lumen) detected significantly increased expired %CO2 in response to a high-carbohydrate meal, and may be useful in tracking mean weekly changes to acute dietary carbohydrate modifications. Additional research is warranted to further determine the practical and clinical efficacy of the Lumen device in applied compared to laboratory settings.

Comparison of Two Metabolic Simulators Used for Gas Exchange Verification in Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test Carts.

INTRODUCTION: Metabolic simulators (MS) produce simulated human breaths for the purpose of verification of cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) equipment. MS should produce consistent identical breaths with known CO2 and O2 gas concentrations over a range of breath rates and tidal volumes. Reliability of a CPET metabolic cart depends on ongoing quality control and maintenance of the device, including intermittent verification with a MS. We compared two MS devices against two standard CPET systems. METHODS: The Vacumed 17056 (Vacumetrics, Ventura, CA) and Relitech (Relitech Systems BV, Nijkerk, The Netherlands) were used with two standard metabolic carts (Vyntus CPX and Vyntus ONE, both Vyaire Medical, Mettawa, IL, United States). Tidal volume (VT) was set at 2 and 3 L and breathing frequency ranged from 20 to 80 breaths per minute for each MS. At each set point, we measured three sets of 40 breaths. Primary outcome parameters collected were VT, oxygen consumption ( v . O2), carbon dioxide production ( v . CO2), and respiratory exchange ratio (RER). RESULTS: VT, RER, v . O2, and v . CO2 results as obtained from both MS were all within the limits of acceptability, at both tidal volume settings, and all ventilatory rates. No significant trends were identified for either MS device. The Relitech MS produced tidal volumes that were closer to the target VT for both CPET carts at both VT and all rates, but the results of both MS were within acceptable ranges. CONCLUSION: Verification of CPET equipment using either the VM or RT metabolic simulator, producing highly accurate and predictable simulated breaths of known composition, enabling CPET laboratory managers to rely on subject test data obtained during cardiopulmonary exercise testing.

Feasibility of mobile cardiopulmonary exercise testing.

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: Evaluation of cardiopulmonary capacity and work ability is often done by cardiopulmonary exercise testing under laboratory conditions. Mobile CPET devices allow measurements under specific real-life conditions, i.e.: at the patient's workplace. We investigated the feasibility and validity of mobile CPET in healthy controls. METHOD: We compared oxygen uptake measured by mobile CPET (MCPET) with that by standard CPET (LCPET), and we compared oxygen uptake with markers of self-reported physical exhaustion. Twenty-two healthy subjects (15 male, 21-49 years) underwent LCPET and 6 outdoors 12-min running tests (MCPETs) at different intensities. Physical exhaustion and the time they could continue exercising (T(EX)) was reported for each level. Standard descriptive statistics were applied. RESULTS: Of 132 MCPETs, performed in 22 subjects, 128 (97%) were of suitable quality. The facemask was well tolerated and nobody felt uncomfortable at any time. On average VO2 [peak] was 21% (SD 9%) higher with MCPET compared to LCPET (median 3.60, range [2.22, 5.14] versus median 2.63, range [1.67, 4.16] L*min(-1)), but showed a strong correlation (r2 = 0.90). MCPET-VO2 at steady state correlated with subjectively rated physical exhaustion, and with TEX. CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-laboratory MCPET was feasible, correlated with parameters of standard CPET, and correlated with markers of physical exhaustion. After validation in patients, MCPET could be used for a rational evaluation of cardiopulmonary capacity and work ability in selected patients.