Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • 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
  • My Cart

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
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Is twice the duration of washout sufficient time between multiple breath nitrogen washout tests?

Elizabeth R. Salamon, Kevin R. Gain, Graham L. Hall
European Respiratory Journal 2017 49: 1602064; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02064-2016
Elizabeth R. Salamon
1Respiratory Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kevin R. Gain
1Respiratory Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Graham L. Hall
2Children's Lung Health, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, Australia
3School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, Australia
4Centre for Child Health Research, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: graham.hall@telethonkids.org.au
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Waiting for multiple breath washout: when is long enough? http://ow.ly/5b5b306mYYh

From the authors:

We read the paper by K.M. Hardaker and co-workers with great interest. Their study confirmed our earlier data: that a washout-derived wait time between measurements of nitrogen-based multiple breath washout (MBW) was not influenced by disease severity, and that on average a wait time of twice the duration of the washout between nitrogen MBW tests eliminated potential measurement artefacts [1].

K.M. Hardaker and co-workers investigated whether our recommendation to wait at least twice the initial washout time between nitrogen MBW measurements was applicable in a larger cohort of children, with a retrospective analysis of clinically obtained data. In our study, we initially used a combination of wait times (5 and 15 min), which were randomised, in children aged 7 years and older. Our protocol was subsequently reviewed for an adult dataset and a wait time based on a function of initial washout time was used. The clinical data set used by Hardaker and co-workers allowed the expression of wait time in relation to washout time, rather than a fixed time, and this was, on average, 1.9 times the previous washout time. We commend their inclusion of preschool-aged children and are pleased that our recommendation is supported in this younger group by their evidence, which showed that a wait time of 1.50–2.27 times the previous washout time was sufficient for repeat measurements of functional residual capacity (FRC) to return reproducible values. A limitation of this retrospective analysis was that, unlike in our study, the time between repeat trials was not randomised and therefore an order effect could not be excluded. Similarly, while their data confirms that a wait time of twice the washout duration was sufficient to avoid artefacts in young children, their study was not designed to specifically test if shorter wait times were appropriate.

Hardaker and co-workers added value to this work by including the lung clearance index (LCI) and found that waiting ∼2 times the previous washout time ensured repeat measurements were reproducible. While our study did not report LCI, we are confident that any potentially detrimental effects of ventilation inhomogeneity on the measured FRC were accounted for by a wait time that was equal to, or exceeded, twice that of the initial washout time. This is supported by our observation in an adult cohort that a wait time based on the patient's own washout time was appropriate in obstructive lung disease. Random-effects regression analysis demonstrated no independent effect of obstructive disease severity on the washout time (p=0.98).

Hardaker and co-workers commented that future work could be done towards pursuing a reduced washout time; however, investigations should proceed with caution as the shorter the time between measurements the greater the risk of effects due to ventilation inhomogeneity. Although no recorded effects were seen on repeat FRC measurement after waiting only once the initial washout time in both our healthy and restricted groups, our obstructive lung disease group exhibited a significant difference in FRC. This suggests that reduced wait times may lead to measurement inaccuracies, although we do advocate further optimisation of lung-function testing protocols to improve the clinical reliability of the test.

The most recent consensus statement for inert gas washout measurements recommends that three technically acceptable FRC measurements are obtained with <10% variation from the minimum to maximum values [2]. The work of Hardaker and co-workers, in addition to our own work, means that this recommendation is attainable within a reasonable time period in a clinical laboratory. We welcome this contribution that has added to the body of work on nitrogen MBW testing procedures by including a younger cohort as well as LCI in the analysis of wait time effect on repeated nitrogen MBW measurements. This work supports our recommendation to wait twice the initial washout time between repeat measurements of FRC and we continue to strongly encourage the development of evidence-based guidelines to inform best practice in the clinical lung-function laboratory.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: None declared.

  • Received October 21, 2016.
  • Accepted October 21, 2016.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2017

References

  1. ↵
    1. Salamon ER,
    2. Gain KR,
    3. Hall GL
    . Defining the appropriate waiting time between multiple-breath nitrogen washout measurements. Eur Respir J 2015; 45: 1489–1491.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Robinson PD,
    2. Latzin P,
    3. Verbanck S, et al.
    Consensus statement for inert gas washout measurement using multiple- and single-breath tests. Eur Respir J 2013; 41: 507–522.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
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.
Is twice the duration of washout sufficient time between multiple breath nitrogen washout tests?
(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.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Is twice the duration of washout sufficient time between multiple breath nitrogen washout tests?
Elizabeth R. Salamon, Kevin R. Gain, Graham L. Hall
European Respiratory Journal Feb 2017, 49 (2) 1602064; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02064-2016

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Is twice the duration of washout sufficient time between multiple breath nitrogen washout tests?
Elizabeth R. Salamon, Kevin R. Gain, Graham L. Hall
European Respiratory Journal Feb 2017, 49 (2) 1602064; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02064-2016
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
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

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

More in this TOC Section

Agora

  • Dupilumab in patients with asthma and blood eosinophils ≥500 cells·µL−1
  • NTM-PD incidence among elderly patients with bronchiectasis
  • Inaccuracy of pulse oximetry in darker skinned patients unchanged across 32 years
Show more Agora

Correspondence

  • Inaccuracy of pulse oximetry in darker skinned patients unchanged across 32 years
  • Reply: Inaccuracy of pulse oximetry in darker skinned patients unchanged across 32 years
  • Reply: Radiomics in ILD associated with systemic sclerosis
Show more Correspondence

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

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

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

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

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

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

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society