84
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Articles

Duplicate measures of hemoglobin mass within an hour: feasibility, reliability, and comparison of three devices in supine position

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, , &
Pages 1-10 | Received 25 Aug 2023, Accepted 17 Dec 2023, Published online: 24 Jan 2024
 

Abstract

Duplicate measure of hemoglobin mass by carbon monoxide (CO)-rebreathing is a logistical challenge as recommendations prompt several hours between measures to minimize CO-accumulation. This study investigated the feasibility and reliability of performing duplicate CO-rebreathing procedures immediately following one another. Additionally, it was evaluated whether the obtained hemoglobin mass from three different CO-rebreathing devices is comparable. Fifty-five healthy participants (22 males, 23 females) performed 222 duplicate CO-rebreathing procedures in total. Additionally, in a randomized cross-over design 10 participants completed three experimental trials, each including three CO-rebreathing procedures, with the first and second separated by 24 h and the second and third separated by 5–10 min. Each trial was separated by >48 h and conducted using either a glass-spirometer, a semi-automated electromechanical device, or a standard three-way plastic valve designed for pulmonary measurements. Hemoglobin mass was 3 ± 22 g lower (p < 0.05) at the second measure when performed immediately after the first with a typical error of 1.1%. Carboxyhemoglobin levels reached 10.9 ± 1.3%. In the randomized trial, hemoglobin mass was similar between the glass-spirometer and three-way valve, but ∼6% (∼50 g) higher for the semi-automated device. Notably, differences in hemoglobin mass were up to ∼13% (∼100 g) when device-specific recommendations for correction of CO loss to myoglobin and exhalation was followed. In conclusion, it is feasible and reliable to perform two immediate CO-rebreathing procedures. Hemoglobin mass is comparable between the glass-spirometer and the three-way plastic valve, but higher for the semi-automated device. The differences are amplified if the device-specific recommendations of CO-loss corrections are followed.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all participants for taking their time to participate in the present and included studies.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available within the manuscript and can be appropriately shared by contacting the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 200.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.