This Article Order Full text via Infotrieve Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Permissions Request Permissions Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chinn, D. Articles by Cotes, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chinn, D. Articles by Cotes, J.

Original Articles

Measurement technique influences the response of transfer factor (TICO) to salbutamol in patients with airflow limitation

Single-breath transfer factor obtained using a multibreath estimate of alveolar volume (TI) was measured before and after salbutamol in twenty patients with reversible airflow limitation. The effective breathholding time was calculated by four methods due respectively to Ogilvie and colleagues as modified by the American Thoracic Society (ATS), ATS Epidemiological Standardization Project (ESP), Jones and Meade in which allowance was made for the time of sample collection and a simplified method in which the allowance for sampling was in terms of volume, not time. Two patients could perform the test procedure only after salbutamol. Amongst the remainder the transfer factor calculated using a single-breath estimate of alveolar volume (TI') was on average 12% less than TI. Carbon monoxide transfer coefficient (KCO), TI and TI' were highest by the ESP method and lowest by the Ogilvie method. Inhalation of salbutamol (200 gamma) did not affect TI' by any method or TI and KCO by the Jones and Meade method but results by the other methods were reduced; in the case of the modified Ogilvie method the reduction was 3.9%. This error was due to overestimation of effective breathholding time by neglecting the reduction of 39% which occurred in the time of sample collection. The time of inspiration was unchanged whilst the time of deadspace washout was reduced by 16%. After bronchodilatation the absence of a change in TI' was due to the overestimation of effective breathholding time being offset by an increase in the proportion of alveolar volume measured by the single-breath procedure.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. MacIntyre, R. O. Crapo, G. Viegi, D. C. Johnson, C. P. M. van der Grinten, V. Brusasco, F. Burgos, R. Casaburi, A. Coates, P. Enright, et al. Standardisation of the single-breath determination of carbon monoxide uptake in the lung Eur. Respir. J., October 1, 2005; 26(4): 720 - 735. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. L. SHERRILL, P. L. ENRIGHT, W. T. KALTENBORN, and M. D. LEBOWITZ Predictors of Longitudinal Change in Diffusing Capacity over 8 Years Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., December 1, 1999; 160(6): 1883 - 1887. [Abstract] [Full Text]