Volume 12, Issue 2 pp. 291-294

Total lung capacity: Single breath methane dilution versus plethysmography in normals

Gene R. PESOLA

Corresponding Author

Gene R. PESOLA

Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Harlem Hospital/Columbia University, New York, New York,

Gene R. Pesola, Department of Medicine (Section of Pulmonary/CCM), Harlem Hospital/Columbia University, MLK 14101, 506 Lenox Avenue, New York, NY, USA. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
Robert T. MAGARI

Robert T. MAGARI

Statistician, Cooper City, Florida, and

Search for more papers by this author
Samuel DARTEY-HAYFORD

Samuel DARTEY-HAYFORD

Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Harlem Hospital/Columbia University, New York, New York,

Search for more papers by this author
Vinette COELHO-D’COSTA

Vinette COELHO-D’COSTA

Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Harlem Hospital/Columbia University, New York, New York,

Search for more papers by this author
Vernon M. CHINCHILLI

Vernon M. CHINCHILLI

Department of Health Evaluation Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 13 February 2007
Citations: 8

Abstract

Objective and background:  Methane is an inert tracer gas used to obtain TLC estimates during single breath diffusion capacity (DLCO) measurements. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of methane dilution TLC in normal subjects undergoing single breath diffusion capacity measurements using plethysmography as the gold standard comparison method.

Methods:  Fifty non-smoking adults underwent lung function testing. Total lung volume was obtained by both plethysmography and methane dilution during a single breath DLCO measurement. Deming regression and the concordance correlation coefficient, r(ccc), were used to determine agreement between methods for TLC. Bias was the mean difference between methods and limits of agreement were the mean difference between methods ± 1.96 (SD). All values are mean ± SD unless otherwise stated.

Results:  Plethysmography and methane dilution TLC values were not significantly different. The r(ccc) was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78–0.92). Deming regression revealed a slope of 0.93 (P = 0.17, Ho: β = 1.0; 95% CI 0.84–1.03) and a y-intercept of 0.20 (P = 0.39, Ho: α = 0; 95% CI −0.27–0.70). The bias was 0.11 L favouring plethysmography. Limits of agreement varied as 0.11 ± 0.92 L.

Conclusions:  There is statistical agreement between methods suggesting the average TLC by methane could substitute for plethysmography in normals at the population level. At the individual level, a normal methane dilution value indicates a normal TLC whereas values below the normal range should be validated using plethysmography.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.