Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • 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
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

DLCO: adjust for lung volume, standardised reporting and interpretation

Douglas C. Johnson
European Respiratory Journal 2017 50: 1700940; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00940-2017
Douglas C. Johnson
Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: dougjohnsonmd@gmail.com
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

DLCO reports and interpretation should be standardised and include adjusting predicted DLCO and KCO for lung volume http://ow.ly/ywTA30cOh44

To the Editor:

The American Thoracic Society (ATS) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) should be congratulated on updating standards for diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) [1]. I agree that “Besides varying with age, sex, height and possible ethnicity, DLCO also changes with Hb, lung volume, COHb, PIO2 …, exercise and body position.” and that “adjustments for these factors be made in the predicted rather than the measured DLCO”. Reporting transfer coefficient of the lung for carbon monoxide (KCO) rather than DLCO/alveolar volume (VA) will help get away from the mistaken notion that DLCO/VA “corrects” DLCO for lung volume [2]. While the new standards describe how to adjust predicted DLCO for haemoglobin (Hb), COHb and inspired oxygen tension (PIO2), it does not discuss how to adjust predicted DLCO and KCO for lung volume.

The following equations [3] were included in the 2005 ATS/ERS DLCO standards [4], and describe how to adjust DLCO and KCO for lung volume. They were developed studying normal subjects with experimental reductions in inspired volume (VI; and thus VA) and fit the model that DLCO and KCO change in a manner expected from having DLCO reduced proportionate to the surface area for gas exchange with the capillary blood component unchanged. Mathematically, they result in DLCO % predicted for lung volume equaling KCO % predicted for lung volume when using the equation KCO(predicted)=DLCO(predicted)/VA(predicted).

DLCO[predicted for lung volume]=DLCO[predicted]×(0.58+0.42×(VAm/VAp))

KCO[predicted for lung volume]=KCO[predicted]×(0.42+0.58/(VAm/VAp))

with VAm/VAp=measured VA/predicted VA.

For example, at VA 50% of predicted, the DLCO predicted for lung volume is 80% and KCO is 160% of that for VA 100% of predicted.

The standards require reporting DLCO and KCO (adjusted, predicted) with specification of the adjustments. Additional reporting requirements should include DLCO (% of adjusted predicted) and VA (% predicted).

Neither the 2005 nor the current standards address how to report DLCO and KCO adjusted for lung volume, or how to interpret DLCO.

In addition to knowing % predicted DLCO and KCO adjusted for all factors except lung volume, it is also very helpful to know % predicted DLCO and KCO when also adjusted for lung volume [2]. Just as adjusting predicted DLCO and KCO for haemoglobin in an anaemic patient yields a better indication of the lung's ability of gas exchange, adjusting DLCO and KCO for lung volume in a patient with low lung volume yields a better indication of the lung's ability of gas exchange.

A shorter nomenclature is needed for DLCO and KCO % predicted also adjusted for lung volume.

I propose DACO and KACO to refer to DLCO and KCO predicted values that have been adjusted for lung volume (the “A” refers to adjusted for lung volume.)

Reporting requirements should include DACO (adjusted, predicted), KACO (adjusted, predicted), as well as DACO (% of adjusted predicted) and KACO (% of adjusted predicted).

The new standards recommend development of a standardised common report form. I propose the following, one when Hb is not measured (box 1) and a second when Hb is measured (box 2), with both including % of FVC for VI if spirometry was done the same day

Diffusing capacityPredicted rangeActual% pred 
 Mean95%   
DLCO mL·min−1·mmHg−1xx.xxxx.xxdd.ddxxPredicted not adjusted for Hb
VA (BTPS) Lx.xxx.xxx.xxxx 
KCO mL·min−1·mmHg−1·L−1xx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxPredicted not adjusted for Hb
VI (BTPS) Lx.xxx.xxxx.xxxxxx% of FVC
DACO mL·min−1·mmHg−1xx.xxxx.xxdd.ddyyPredicted adjusted for lung volume

DLCO and KCO are yy% predicted, adjusted for lung volume.

    BOX 1

    Common report form for diffusing capacity when haemoglobin measurements are not taken

    Diffusing capacityPredicted rangeActual% predHb xx.x from D-MON-YYYY
     Mean95%   
    DLCO mL·min−1·mmHg−1xx.xxxx.xxdd.ddxxPredicted not adjusted for Hb
    DLCO mL·min−1·mmHg−1xx.xxxx.xxdd.ddxxPredicted adjusted for Hb
    VA (BTPS) Lx.xxx.xxx.xxxx 
    KCO mL·min−1·mmHg−1·L−1xx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxPredicted adjusted for Hb
    VI (BTPS) Lx.xxx.xxx.xxxxxx% of FVC
    DACO mL·min−1·mmHg−1xx.xxxx.xxdd.ddyyPredicted adjusted for lung volume and Hb

    DLCO and KCO are yy% predicted, adjusted for lung volume and Hb.

      BOX 2

      Common report form for diffusing capacity when haemoglobin measurements are taken

      For both reports, if DLCO and KCO predicted were also adjusted for COHb and/or PIO2, then a line saying “Predicted DLCO and KCO also adjusted for …” should appear at the end, which includes the data used to make the adjustment, such as “COHb of 2.6% and altitude of 2000m.” The 95% values are the lower limit of normal (LLN), with DACO[LLN]=DACO[adjusted,predicted]×DLCO[LLN]/DLCO[predicted].

      There is not a clear consensus on interpretation of DLCO. I recommend the following algorithm to interpret DLCO, with DLCO % predicted, adjusted and LLN the lower limit of normal (box 3).

      DLCO ≥80% and ≥LLNDLCO is normal
      DLCO <80% but ≥LLNDLCO is near lower limit of normal
      DLCO ≥60%, <80%, and <LLNDLCO is mildly reduced
      DLCO ≥40%, <60%, and <LLNDLCO is moderately reduced
      DLCO <40%DLCO is severely reduced
      BOX 3

      Interpretation of diffusing capacity values

      If DLCO is not normal, and DLCO adjusted for lung volume (DACO) is above the LLN as % predicted, then add phrase “due to low lung volume”.

      If DLCO is not normal, and DLCO adjusted for lung volume is below the LLN as % predicted but more than 10% predicted greater than DLCO, then add phrase “in part due to low lung volume”.

      As a co-author of the 2005 ERS/ATS DLCO standards, I believe including adjustments of DLCO for lung volume and standardised reports and interpretation would improve the clinical value of DLCO.

      Footnotes

      • Conflict of interest: None declared.

      • Received May 8, 2017.
      • Accepted May 31, 2017.
      • Copyright ©ERS 2017

      References

      1. ↵
        1. Graham BL,
        2. Brusasco V,
        3. Burgos F, et al.
        2017 ERS/ATS Standards for single-breath carbon monoxide uptake in the lung. Eur Respir J 2017; 49: 1600016.
        OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      2. ↵
        1. Hughes M,
        2. Pride N
        . Examination of the carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLCO) in relation to its KCO and VA components. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012; 186: 132–139.
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      3. ↵
        1. Johnson DC
        . Importance of adjusting carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLCO) and carbon monoxide transfer coefficient (KCO) for alveolar volume. Respir Med 2000; 94: 28–37.
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      4. ↵
        1. MacIntyre N,
        2. Crapo R,
        3. Viegi G, et al.
        Standardisation of the single-breath determination of carbon monoxide uptake in the lung. Eur Respir J 2005; 26: 720–735.
        OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      View Abstract
      PreviousNext
      Back to top
      View this article with LENS
      Vol 50 Issue 2 Table of Contents
      European Respiratory Journal: 50 (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.
      DLCO: adjust for lung volume, standardised reporting and interpretation
      (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
      Alerts
      Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
      Citation Tools
      DLCO: adjust for lung volume, standardised reporting and interpretation
      Douglas C. Johnson
      European Respiratory Journal Aug 2017, 50 (2) 1700940; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00940-2017

      Citation Manager Formats

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

      Share
      DLCO: adjust for lung volume, standardised reporting and interpretation
      Douglas C. Johnson
      European Respiratory Journal Aug 2017, 50 (2) 1700940; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00940-2017
      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
      • Figures & Data
      • Info & Metrics
      • PDF

      Subjects

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

      More in this TOC Section

      Agora

      • Ivacaftor modifies cystic fibrosis neutrophil phenotype
      • Serum mitochondrial DNA predicts exacerbation and progression of IPF
      • CTEPH and totally implantable central venous access systems
      Show more Agora

      Correspondence

      • Non-animal models for COVID-19 lung research
      • User-life of ICS/LABA inhaler devices should be considered
      • Peripheral blood eosinophil counts in European and East Asian populations
      Show more Correspondence

      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
      • 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
      • Submit a manuscript
      • ERS author centre

      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 © 2021 by the European Respiratory Society