Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Comparison between the Jaeger Oxycon Pro and the COSMED Quark RMR Metabolic Carts for Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in the Context of an Aerosol-Borne Infectious Disease

Version 1 : Received: 24 October 2023 / Approved: 25 October 2023 / Online: 25 October 2023 (11:24:20 CEST)
Version 2 : Received: 28 October 2023 / Approved: 31 October 2023 / Online: 31 October 2023 (08:21:46 CET)

How to cite: Muñoz-Muñoz, M.; Leal-Martín, J.; Baltasar-Fernandez, I.; Alcazar, J.; Alegre, L.M.; Losa-Reyna, J.; Ara, I. Comparison between the Jaeger Oxycon Pro and the COSMED Quark RMR Metabolic Carts for Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in the Context of an Aerosol-Borne Infectious Disease. Preprints 2023, 2023101625. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202310.1625.v1 Muñoz-Muñoz, M.; Leal-Martín, J.; Baltasar-Fernandez, I.; Alcazar, J.; Alegre, L.M.; Losa-Reyna, J.; Ara, I. Comparison between the Jaeger Oxycon Pro and the COSMED Quark RMR Metabolic Carts for Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in the Context of an Aerosol-Borne Infectious Disease. Preprints 2023, 2023101625. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202310.1625.v1

Abstract

Several factors, such as internal algorithm, sensor technology, use of antibacterial filters or obsolescence, might explain the differences among computerised metabolic carts when measuring gas exchange parameters during cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET). Thus, the main aim of this study was to compare the Jaeger Oxycon Pro and the Quark RMR during CPET in the context of an aerosol-borne infectious disease. Forty-two participants (19-54 years old) performed two non-consecutive maximal graded exercise tests on a cycle-ergometer on two counterbalance and different days using the Oxycon Pro, with and antibacterial filter, and the Quark RMR in a randomized order. Differences between devices were tested using a generalized linear model adjusted by Bonferroni, and correlation and agreement was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R), intraclass coefficient correlation (ICC), Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots. No significant differences were found between devices in any of metabolic or ventilatory parameters for cardiorespiratory fitness assessment (VO2max: 3131.3±882.1 vs. 3189.8±894.8, p=0.071, VCO2max: 3436.3±936.0 vs. 3550.3±1043.2, p=0.071, for Quark RMR and Oxycon Pro, respectively). However, Bland-Altman plots showed a trivial tendency towards Oxycon Pro overestimation relative to Quark RMR as air flow volume increases. Both devices showed strong correlation and high level of agreement during maximal and submaximal exercise intensities (Pearson’s R: 0.974 & 0.977; ICC: 0.985 & 0.987; Lin’s CCC: 0.971 & 0.974, for VO2 and VCO2, respectively). Therefore, providing consistency to CPET data comparison between both devices, and insight into whether the use of these metabolic carts could be interchangeable or combined when a single device cannot be used for CPET assessment.

Keywords

graded exercise test; gas exchange analysis; metabolic cart

Subject

Social Sciences, Other

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.