Metabolic gas analysis is a critical component of investigations that measure cardio-pulmonary exercise responses during and after long-duration spaceflight. The primary purpose of the current study was to determine the reliability and intra-subject repeatability of a metabolic gas analysis device, the Portable Pulmonary Function System (PPFS), designed for use on the International Space Station (ISS). The second objective of this study was to directly compare PPFS measurements of expired oxygen and carbon dioxide (FEO2 and FECO2) to values obtained from a well-validated clinical metabolic gas analysis system (ParvoMedics TrueOne (c) [PM]). Eight subjects performed four peak cycle tests to maximal exertion. The first test was used to prescribe work rates for the subsequent test sessions. Metabolic gas analysis for this test was performed by the PM, but samples of FEO2 and FECO2 also were simultaneously collected for analysis by the PPFS. Subjects then performed three additional peak cycle tests, consisting of three 5-min stages designed to elicit 25%, 50%, and 75% maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) followed by stepwise increases of 25 W/min until subjects reached volitional exhaustion. Metabolic gas analysis was performed using the PPFS for these tests. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), within-subject standard deviations (WS SD), and coefficients of variation (CV%) were calculated for the repeated exercise tests. Mixed model regression analysis was used to compare paired FEO2 and FECO2 values obtained from the PPFS and the PM during the initial test. The ICC values for oxygen consumption (VO2), carbon dioxide production (VCO2), and ventilation (VE) indicate that the PPFS is highly reliable (0.79 to 0.99) for all exercise levels tested; however, ICCs for respiratory exchange ratio (RER) were low ( 0.11 - 0.51), indicating poor agreement between trials during submaximal and maximal exercise. Overall, CVs ranged from 1.6% to 6.7% for all measurements, a finding consistent with reported values that were obtained using other metabolic gas analysis techniques. The PPFS and PM produced comparable FEO2 data; however, there was less agreement between measures of FECO2 obtained from the two devices, particularly at lower CO2 concentrations. The PPFS appears, in practically all respects, to yield highly reliable metabolic gas analysis data. Lower reliability of RER measurements reported in the literature and likely is not a function of the PPFS device. Further examination of PPFS CO2 data is warranted to better understand the limitations of these PPFS measurements. Overall, the PPFS when used for repeated measures of cardio-pulmonary exercise should provide accurate and reliable data for studies of human adaptation to spaceflight.
PDF
download
878987797
028-85220240
