Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current issue
    • ERJ Early View
    • Archive
  • About
    • About continuous publication
    • Journal information
    • Editorial Board
    • CME
    • Press office
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • ERS author centre
  • For readers
    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current issue
    • ERJ Early View
    • Archive
  • About
    • About continuous publication
    • Journal information
    • Editorial Board
    • CME
    • Press office
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • ERS author centre
  • For readers
    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS
  • Subscriptions

Standardisation and application of the single-breath determination of nitric oxide uptake in the lung

Gerald S. Zavorsky, Connie C.W. Hsia, J. Michael B. Hughes, Colin D.R. Borland, Hervé Guénard, Ivo van der Lee, Irene Steenbruggen, Robert Naeije, Jiguo Cao, Anh Tuan Dinh-Xuan
European Respiratory Journal 2017 49: 1600962; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00962-2016
Gerald S. Zavorsky
Dept of Respiratory Therapy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Gerald S. Zavorsky
  • For correspondence: zavorsky@gsu.edu
Connie C.W. Hsia
Dept of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Michael B. Hughes
National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Colin D.R. Borland
Dept of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Huntingdon, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hervé Guénard
Dept of Physiology and Pulmonary Laboratory, University of Bordeaux and CHU, Bordeaux, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ivo van der Lee
Dept of Pulmonary Diseases, Spaarne Hospital, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Irene Steenbruggen
Pulmonary Laboratory, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Naeije
Dept of Cardiology, Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jiguo Cao
Dept of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anh Tuan Dinh-Xuan
Dept of Physiology, Cochin Hospital, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Figures

  • Tables
  • Supplementary Materials
  • Additional Files
  • FIGURE 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1

    Diagram of the uptake pathways for inhaled nitric oxide (NO) and carbon monoxide (CO) from the alveolar membrane to their combination with haemoglobin (Hb) within the red blood cell, in terms of the Roughton–Forster equation, 1/DL=1/DM+1/(θ·VC), where 1/DL is the total resistance to NO or CO uptake, 1/DM is the resistance from the alveolar membrane to the red cell membrane (membrane resistance) and 1/(θ·VC) is the diffusion and chemical combination resistance (red cell resistance) within the erythrocyte (1). The chief barrier to CO uptake is within the red cell (∼70–80%); the ∼25% remaining resistance to CO diffusion is located in the alveolar membrane (2). The main resistance barrier for NO lies between the alveolar and red blood cell membranes (∼60%; 3), with the red cell resistance (4) comprising ∼40% of the resistance to NO diffusion, as observed by Borland et al. [13]. Specifically, the red cell interior is the determinant part of the membrane resistance to NO [14]. Reproduced and adapted from [20] with permission from the publisher.

  • FIGURE 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2

    a) The association between diffusing capacities of the lung for nitric oxide (DLNO) and carbon monoxide (DLCO) measured at rest (single-breath; average breath-hold time was ∼6 s). Several published studies were used [57, 106, 107]. DLNO=4.65·(DLCO)+3.8, R2 0.90, standard error of the estimate (see) 11.8, p<0.001, 95% CI of the slope 4.51–4.79; n=493 healthy subjects. b) The association between pulmonary diffusing capacity and alveolar volume (VA) measured at rest (single-breath; average breath-hold time was ∼6 s). Several published studies were used [57, 106, 107]. DLNO=23.0·(VA)+2.4, R2 0.64, see 21.9, p<0.001, 95% CI of the slope 21.4–24.5; n=493. DLCO=4.63·(VA)+1.55, R2 0.62, see 4.5, p<0.001, 95% CI of the slope 4.31–4.94; n=493. All healthy subjects. c) The association between pulmonary diffusing capacity and cardiac output (Q) measured at rest and during exercise by rebreathing. Data from two published studies [35, 109], including ∼45% of previously unpublished data. DLNO=6.3·(Q)+58.2, R2 0.42, see 31.3, p<0.001, 95% CI of the slope 5.5–7.2; n=76, four data points per subject. DLCO=2.0·(Q)+9.0, R2 0.71, see 5.3, p<0.001, 95% CI of the slope 1.8–2.1; n=76, four data points per subject. All healthy subjects. When using rebreathing manouvres, DLCO is more tightly associated with cardiac output than DLNO (comparison of correlation coefficients z-statistic 5.52, p<0.01); however, DLNO is more tightly related to alveolar volume compared to DLCO (comparison of correlation coefficients z-statistic 2.27, p=0.023). The association between DLNO and DLCO in relation to VA during rebreathing manouvres (r=0.73 between DLNO versus VA, and r=0.63 between DLCO versus VA) is not shown here.

  • FIGURE 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3

    Plots of a) pulmonary diffusing capacity for nitric oxide (DLNO) and pulmonary diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), their ratio (DLNO/DLCO), alveolar–capillary membrane diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DMCO) and the DMCO to pulmonary capillary blood volume (VC) ratio (DMCO/VC), as they relate to the percentage of maximal alveolar volume (VA) (x-axis) compared to their percentage value at maximal VA (y-axis); and b) rates of alveolar uptake for NO and CO per unit time and pressure, KNO and KCO (mathematically equivalent to DLNO/VA and DLCO/VA, respectively), and the membrane diffusing capacity (DM) and pulmonary capillary volume (VC), both per unit alveolar volume (VA) (DM/VA and VC/VA), as the expansion of the lung is changed voluntarily in normal subjects (100% of maximal VA, which is approximately total lung capacity, and 50% of maximal VA, which is approximately functional residual capacity). Note in a) that with diminishing lung expansion (ΔVA), ΔDLNO is better related to membrane diffusing capacity (ΔDMCO) and ΔDMCO/VC change than the DLCO change. In b), ΔKCO is a better reflection of changes in the pulmonary microcirculation (capillary volume per unit alveolar volume, VC/VA) than the KNO; decrease of DM/VA with VA change suggests isotropic change as alveolar dimensions reduce with concomitant thickening of the alveolar–capillary membranes. Interrupted line (in b) signifies no change with change of VA. Data from [21, 57].

  • FIGURE 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 4

    a) Pulmonary capillary blood volume (VC) and b) alveolar–capillary membrane diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DMCO), measured using four different formulas for specific conductance in the blood for carbon monoxide (θCO). Based on the subject data from table 1, DMCO and VC were calculated from the four formulas/constants listed in table 5. The mean values for both VC and DMCO were statistically significant between all four formulas (p<0.01). Each box represents the 25th (bottom border), 50th (middle) and 75th (top border) percentiles. The error bars above and below each box represent the 90th and 10th percentiles, respectively. The 5th and 95th percentiles are represented by solid black circles below and above the error bars, respectively. The formula from Guénard et al. [16] provided the highest VC and lowest overall DMCO, while the formula from Roughton and Forster [11] provided the highest DMCO and lowest VC. The three formulas developed by Guénard et al. [16], Forster [4] and Holland [28] provided the closest mean values with one another. Taken overall, these formulas show reasonable agreement with one another.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Supplementary Materials
  • Additional Files
  • TABLE 1

    Subject characteristics from previously published studies from which prediction equations were made [57, 106, 107]

    MalesFemalesCombined
    Subjects248242490
    Age years44±17 (18–93)45±18 (18–87)44±17 (18–93)
    Weight kg76.7±9.4 (55.0–105.0)61.6±8.8 (44.0–95.0)69.3±11.8 (44.0–105.0)
    Height cm176±8 (154–196)164±7 (147–182)170±10 (147–196)
    Body mass index kg·m-224.7±2.5 (18.9–29.9)23.0±3.0 (17.2–29.8)23.8±2.9 (17.2–29.9)
    DLNO mL·min−1·mmHg−1164±31 (67–235)119±25 (47–186)142±36 (47–235)
    DLCO mL·min−1·mmHg−134.1±6.3 (11.9–49.9)25.1±5.3 (11.3–38.6)29.6±7.4 (11.3–49.9)
    DMCO mL·min−1·mmHg−1161±39 (72–250)104±26 (33–182)133±44 (33–250)
    VC mL78±16 (25–121)65±15 (30–105)72±17 (25–121)
    DMCO/VC ratio min−1·mmHg−12.11±0.57 (1.01–4.03)1.63±0.40 (0.88–2.96)1.90±0.57 (0.88–4.03)
    KCO mL·min−1·mmHg−1·L−14.9±0.8 (2.7–7.1)4.8±0.7 (3.0–6.8)4.9±0.8 (2.7–7.1)
    KNO mL·min−1·mmHg−1·L−123.8±3.9 (13.7–34.2)22.8±3.2 (13.5–31.5)23.3±3.6 (13.5–34.2)
    DLNO/DLCO ratio4.83±0.40 (3.83–5.82)4.74±0.39 (3.85–5.78)4.79±0.40 (3.83–5.82)
    • Data are presented as n or mean±sd (range). The alveolar–capillary membrane diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DMCO) and total volume of blood in the lung capillaries exposed to alveolar air (VC) values reported in these studies [57, 106, 107] have been recalculated according to the parameters listed in table 4. DLNO: diffusing capacity of the lung for nitric oxide; DLCO: diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide; KCO: rate of uptake of carbon monoxide from alveolar gas; KNO: rate of uptake of nitric oxide from alveolar gas.

  • TABLE 2

    Predictive equations for white adults at a breath-hold time of ∼6 s, inspired nitric oxide (NO) of ∼35 ppm and inspired oxygen of ∼19.5%, from three studies [57, 106, 107]

    Height cmAge2SexConstantAdjusted R2seeLLN and ULN
    DLCO mL·min−1·mmHg−10.23−0.0026.0−8.50.684.2±8.2
    DLNO mL·min−1·mmHg−10.81−0.01034.49.70.6920.0±39.2
    DMCO mL·min−1·mmHg−1−0.01156.4129.60.6127.3±53.5
    VC mL0.84−0.004−59.90.4912.0±23.5
    VA L0.0790.73−7.70.670.72±1.4
    VC/VA mL·L−1−0.0006−1.2513.90.271.89±3.70
    DMCO/VA mL·min−1·mmHg−1·L−1−0.200−0.0025.956.60.413.81±7.47
    KCO mL·min−1·mmHg−1·L−1−0.000275.50.340.6±1.2
    KNO mL·min−1·mmHg−1·L−1−0.0013726.40.392.8±5.5
    • Alveolar–capillary membrane diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DMCO) and total volume of blood in the lung capillaries exposed to alveolar air (VC) values in these studies [57, 106, 107] have been recalculated according to the formulas and constants in table 4 and then re-analysed for the regression. A predictive model was not found for the ratio of diffusing capacities of the lung for nitric oxide and carbon monoxide (DLNO/DLCO). Sex: 1 for male, 0 for female; see: standard error of the estimate. To convert DLNO, DLCO and DMCO to mmol·min−1·kPa−1, divide by 3. Lower limit of normal (LLN)=2.5th percentile; upper limit of normal (ULN)=97.5th percentile. n=490. VA: alveolar lung volume; KCO: rate of uptake of carbon monoxide from alveolar gas; KNO: rate of uptake of nitric oxide from alveolar gas. Supplementary appendix H allows the patient's individual values to be inserted in relation to the predicted values.

  • TABLE 3

    Intra-session and inter-session variability of single-breath measurements of the diffusing capacities of the lung for nitric oxide (DLNO) and carbon monoxide (DLCO) (5 s breath hold) at rest

    Test-to-test measurement error (within the same testing session)Repeatability# (within the same testing session)Reproducibility¶
    (week-to-week or month-to-month change) More stringent
    Smallest measurable change+ (week-to-week or month-to-month change) Less stringent
    DLNO
     mL·min−1·mmHg−16.2 (4)17 (10)20 (13)10 (7)
     mmol·min−1·kPa−12.1 (4)5.8 (10)6.5 (13)3.3 (7)
    DLCO
     mL·min−1·mmHg−11.2 (4)3.2 (10)4.9 (16)2.5 (8)
     mmol·min−1·kPa−10.4 (4)1.1 (10)1.6 (16)0.8 (8)
    DLNO/DLCO ratio0.12 (2)0.36 (7)0.23 (5)0.13 (3)
    DMCO
     mL·min−1·mmHg−112 (7)34 (19)47 (28)24 (28)
     mmol·min−1·kPa−14.1 (7)11.2 (19)15.8 (28)8 (14)
    VC mL4 (5)10 (13)16 (24)8 (12)
    • Numbers are presented as the value with the percentages in parentheses. Within-session data [49] and reproducibility data (between sessions) [88] were obtained from healthy subjects. The diffusing capacity of the membrane for carbon monoxide (DMCO), nitric oxide (DMNO) and total volume of blood in the lung capillaries exposed to alveolar air (VC) values are recalculations from the original dataset using the formulas and constants in table 4 as well as the supplementary appendices. The DLCO repeatability and reproducibility in subjects with pulmonary pathophysiology (mean DLCO 11–18 mL·min−1·mmHg−1) are 2.7 and 4 mL·min−1·mmHg−1, respectively [113, 114]. The repeatability was calculated as follows: the mean within-subject standard deviation (which is the average standard deviation between several diffusing capacity tests performed in one session) multiplied by 2.77. The reproducibility is performed the same way, except the mean week-to-week standard deviation is used (which is the average standard deviation between diffusing capacity measured over several weeks multiplied by 2.77). Refer to supplementary appendix G for in-depth statistical methodology of the calculation. #: the difference between two trials for DLNO, DLCO, DMCO and VC measured on the same subject in the same testing session is expected to be <17, <3.2 and <34 mL·min−1·mmHg−1 and <10 mL, respectively, for 95% of observations; ¶: the difference in DLNO, DLCO, DMCO and VC measured on the same subject over two different weeks is expected to be less than 20, 4.9, and 47 mL·min−1·mmHg−1 and 16 mL, respectively, 95% of the time. Any diffusing capacity parameter that has a week-to-week or month-to-month change that is equal to or greater than the reproducibility has only a 5% chance that it is not a real change; +: half the reproducibility and thus less stringent than the reproducibility. Any week-to-week or month-to-month change that is equal to the smallest meaningful change has a 20% chance that it is not a real change. The reproducibility and smallest meaningful change are most correct when using the same equipment for the duration of the assessment.

  • TABLE 4

    Summary consensus statement for simultaneous single-breath measurement of diffusing capacities of the lung for nitric oxide (DLNO) and carbon monoxide (DLCO) in healthy adults

    IssueAgreement
    Breath-hold time10 s is desired for better gas mixing
    4–6 s is acceptable if using a single electrochemical NO cell that measures in the ppm range
    Measured inspired NO concentration40–60 ppm, placed in the inspiratory bag ≤2 min before use
    Measured inspired O2 concentrationClose to 21%
    Measured expired O2 concentrationUsed to calculate PAO2 and θCO
    1/θCO [16](0.0062·PAO2+1.16)·(ideal Hb÷measured Hb)
    θNO [14, 29]4.5 mL NO·(mL blood·min·mmHg)−1
    (1/θNO=0.222)#
    θNO/θCO ratioAverage 8.01 (male Hb 14.6 g·dL−1), 8.73 (female Hb 13.4 g·dL−1) at PAO2 of 100 mmHg#
    DMCODMNO divided by 1.97#
    Presentation of resultsReport DLNO, DLCO, KNO and KCO in absolute numbers and as % predicted from regression equations (at the appropriate breath-hold time), with the corresponding LLN, ULN and z-score (standardised residuals: number of standard deviations above or below the reference value)
    Report alveolar volume in L BTPS and as TLC % pred
    • NO: nitric oxide; O2: oxygen; θCO (NO): specific conductance in the blood for carbon monoxide (NO) in mL·(mL blood·min·mmHg)−1; DMCO: alveolar–capillary membrane diffusing capacity for CO; PO2: oxygen tension; PAO2: alveolar oxygen tension; Hb: haemoglobin; DMNO: alveolar–capillary membrane diffusing capacity for NO; KNO: rate of change of NO from alveolar gas; KCO: rate of change of CO from alveolar gas; LLN: lower limit of normal; ULN: upper limit of normal; BTPS: body temperature and pressure, saturated (760 mmHg, 37°C, 100% humidity); TLC: total lung capacity. #: used in tables 1, 2 and 3 and the supplementary appendices.

  • TABLE 5

    1/θCO equations that show reasonable agreement

    Formula for 1/θCO1/θCOθNO/θCO
    Ideal Hb (14.6 g·dL−1)Ideal Hb (13.4 g·dL−1)Ideal Hb (14.6 g·dL−1)Ideal Hb (13.4 g·dL−1)
    Derived in vivo
      Guénard et al. [16](0.0062·PAO2+1.16)·(ideal Hb÷measured Hb)1.7801.9398.0108.727
    Derived in vitro
      Forster [4] α=∞, pH=7.4(0.0041·PAO2+1.3)·(ideal Hb÷measured Hb)1.7101.8637.6958.384
      Roughton and Forster [11]  α=1.5, pH=8.0(0.0058·PAO2+1.0)·(ideal Hb÷measured Hb)1.5801.7217.1107.747
      Holland [28] α=1.5(0.0065·PAO2+1.08)·(ideal Hb÷measured Hb)1.7301.8857.7858.482
    • Numbers given are for the following standards: alveolar oxygen tension (PAO2) 100 mmHg and specific conductance in the blood for nitric oxide (θNO) 4.5 mL NO· (mL blood·min·mmHg)−1 and thus 1/θNO=0.222, from [14, 29]. θCO: specific conductance in the blood for carbon monoxide; Hb: haemoglobin; α: the ratio of permeability of the red cell membrane to that of the red cell interior.

Supplementary Materials

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Supplementary Material

    Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.

    Supplementary material: Appendix H ERJ-00962-2016_Appendix_H

    Supplementary material: Appendices A to G ERJ-00962-2016_Appendices_A-G

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplementary Materials
  • ERJ Podcast

    Duration: 13:34 min

    Presenter: Marc Humbert, Chief Editor, ERJ

    Interviewee: Gerald S. Zavorsky, Dept of Respiratory Therapy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Articles discussed:

    • Zavorsky GS, Hsia CCW, Hughes JMB, et al. Standardisation and application of the single-breath determination of nitric oxide uptake in the lung. Eur Respir J 2017; 49: 1600962. Full Text

    Subscribe to the ERJ Podcast via iTunes, SoundCloud or RSS

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Download the podcast - in MP3 format
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 49 Issue 2 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 49 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Standardisation and application of the single-breath determination of nitric oxide uptake in the lung
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
Print
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Standardisation and application of the single-breath determination of nitric oxide uptake in the lung
Gerald S. Zavorsky, Connie C.W. Hsia, J. Michael B. Hughes, Colin D.R. Borland, Hervé Guénard, Ivo van der Lee, Irene Steenbruggen, Robert Naeije, Jiguo Cao, Anh Tuan Dinh-Xuan
European Respiratory Journal Feb 2017, 49 (2) 1600962; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00962-2016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Standardisation and application of the single-breath determination of nitric oxide uptake in the lung
Gerald S. Zavorsky, Connie C.W. Hsia, J. Michael B. Hughes, Colin D.R. Borland, Hervé Guénard, Ivo van der Lee, Irene Steenbruggen, Robert Naeije, Jiguo Cao, Anh Tuan Dinh-Xuan
European Respiratory Journal Feb 2017, 49 (2) 1600962; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00962-2016
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Development and selection of the task force panel
    • The history of single-breath DLNO or TLNO
    • Determinants of NO uptake
    • Measurements of single-breath DLNO in normal subjects and in cardiopulmonary diseases
    • Gas analysers and general equipment
    • Testing technique
    • Calculations for DLNO, DLCO and VA
    • Evaluating the measurement of DLNO
    • Prediction equations
    • Contraindications to DLNO and DLCO assessments
    • Future investigations
    • Summary and conclusions
    • Supplementary material
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Lung structure and function
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • ERS/ECDC Statement: European Union Standards for Tuberculosis Care - 2017 update
  • ERS/ATS guidelines: NIV for acute respiratory failure
  • ERS statement on protracted bacterial bronchitis in children
Show more Task force report

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • CME
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Submit a manuscript
  • ERS author centre

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Fax: +44 114 266 5064
Email: info@ersj.org.uk

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2018 by the European Respiratory Society