Evaluation of the Danish Aerospace Corporation Portable Pulmonary Function System
A research project designed to investigate changes in maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) during and following long duration flight on the International Space Station (ISS) has recently been completed. The device used to measure VO2 on board ISS, the Portable Pulmonary Function System (PPFS) manufactured by the Danish Aerospace Corporation (DAC), is based on previous-generation devices manufactured by DAC, but the PPFS has not been validated for analyzing metabolic gases or measuring cardiac output (Qc). The purpose of the present evaluation is to compare PPFS metabolic gas analysis measurements to measurements obtained using a clinically-validated system (ParvoMedics TrueOne(c) 2400 system; Parvo). In addition, Qc data collected with the PPFS were compared to Qc measurements from echocardiography. METHODS: Ten subjects completed three cycle exercise tests to maximal exertion. The first test was conducted to determine each subject's VO2max and set the work rates for the second and third (comparison) tests. The protocol for the two comparison tests consisted of three 5-minute stages designed to elicit 25%, 50%, and 75% VO2max (based upon results from the initial test), followed by 1-minute stages of increasing work rate (25 watt/minute) until the subject reached maximal effort. During one of the two comparison tests, metabolic gases and Qc were assessed with the PPFS; metabolic gases and Qc were assessed with the Parvo and by echocardiography, respectively, during the other test. The order of the comparison tests was counterbalanced. VO2max and maximal work rate during the comparison tests were compared using t tests. Mixed-effects regression modeling was used to analyze submaximal data. RESULTS: All of the data were within normal physiological ranges. The PPFS-measured values for VO2max were 6% lower than values obtained with the Parvo (PPFS: 3.11 +/- 0.75 L/min; Parvo: 3.32 +/- 0.87 L/min; mean +/- standard deviation; P = 0.02); this difference is probably due to flow restriction imposed by the PPFS Qc accessories. Submaximal VO2 values were slightly lower when measured with the PPFS, although differences were not physiologically relevant. The PPFS-measured values of submaximal carbon dioxide production (VCO2) were lower than the data obtained from Parvo, which could be attributed to lower fractions of expired carbon dioxide measured by the PPFS. The PPFS Qc values tended to be lower than echocardiography-derived values. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study indicate a need to further examine the PPFS and to better quantify its reproducibility; however, none of the findings of the current evaluation indicate that the PPFS needs to be replaced or modified.