Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Nduka Okwose,
Dr Dave Houghton,
Professor Mike TrenellORCiD,
Professor Christopher EggettORCiD,
Dr Guy MacGowanORCiD,
Professor Djordje JakovljevicORCiD
This is the authors' accepted manuscript of an article that has been published in its final definitive form by Wiley-Blackwell, 2018.
For re-use rights please refer to the publisher's terms and conditions.
© Scandinavian Society of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine. Purpose: This study assessed the agreement between cardiac output estimated by inert gas rebreathing and bioreactance methods at rest and during exercise. Methods: Haemodynamic measurements were assessed in 20 healthy individuals (11 females, nine males; aged 32 ± 10 years) using inert gas rebreathing and bioreactance methods. Gas exchange and haemodynamic data were measured simultaneously under rest and different stages (i.e. 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 W) of progressive graded cardiopulmonary exercise stress testing using a bicycle ergometer. Results: At rest, bioreactance produced significantly higher cardiac output values than inert gas rebreathing (7·8 ± 1·4 versus 6·5 ± 1·7 l min-1, P = 0·01). At low-to-moderate exercise intensities (i.e. 30-90 W), bioreactance produced significantly higher cardiac outputs compared with rebreathing method (P<0·05). At workloads of 120 W and above, there was no significant difference in cardiac outputs between the two methods (P = 0·10). There was a strong relationship between the two methods (r = 0·82, P = 0·01). Bland-Altman analysis including rest and exercise data showed that inert gas rebreathing reported 1·95 l min-1 lower cardiac output than bioreactance, with lower and upper limits of agreement of -3·1-7·07 l min-1. Analysis of peak exercise data showed a mean difference of 0·4 l min-1 (lower and upper limits of agreement of -4·9-5·7 l min-1) between both devices. Conclusion: Bioreactance and inert gas rebreathing methods show acceptable levels of agreement for estimating cardiac output at higher levels of metabolic demand. However, they cannot be used interchangeably due to strong disparity in results at rest and low-to-moderate exercise intensity.
Author(s): Okwose NC, Chowdhury S, Houghton D, Trenell MI, Eggett C, Bates M, Macgowan GA, Jakovljevic DG
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging
Print publication date: 01/05/2018
Online publication date: 02/06/2017
Acceptance date: 02/05/2017
Date deposited: 01/02/2019
ISSN (print): 1475-0961
ISSN (electronic): 1475-097X
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric