Breath-holding test in evaluation of peripheral chemoreflex sensitivity in healthy subjects

•A breath-holding test and a SB-CO2 test are comparable and reproducible.•Breath-holding duration inversely correlates with the results of SB-CO2 test.•Breath-holding test may be useful in routine assessment of peripheral chemoreflex. The aim of the study was to determine the feasibility of using a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inRespiratory physiology & neurobiology Vol. 235; pp. 79 - 82
Main Authors Trembach, Nikita, Zabolotskikh, Igor
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Netherlands Elsevier B.V 01.01.2017
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:•A breath-holding test and a SB-CO2 test are comparable and reproducible.•Breath-holding duration inversely correlates with the results of SB-CO2 test.•Breath-holding test may be useful in routine assessment of peripheral chemoreflex. The aim of the study was to determine the feasibility of using a breath-holding test in assessing the sensitivity of the peripheral chemoreflex compared with the single-breath carbon dioxide test. The study involved 48 healthy volunteers between the ages of 18–29 years. The breath-holding test was performed followed by the single-breath carbon dioxide test on the next day. A month after the first tests, these tests were repeated to evaluate their reproducibility The coefficient of variability in the single-breath carbon dioxide test ranged from 0 to 32% with a mean of 10±7%. The mean coefficient of variability of the breath-holding test was 6±4% (0–19%). A significant inverse correlation between the results of the two tests was noted following analysis (r=−0.82, p<0.05). A breath-holding test after deep inspiration reflects the sensitivity of the peripheral chemoreflex as defined by the single-breath carbon dioxide test in healthy subjects.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1569-9048
1878-1519
DOI:10.1016/j.resp.2016.10.005