Subat, Yosuf W.

Abstract Background Single breath diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) remains the most widely used test to assess pulmonary gas exchange. GLI DLCO reference equations are based on a larger, more diverse dataset and offer age-specific and internally consistent reference values. However, their impact on interpretation in a real-world population remains uncertain. Research Question Describe the direction and magnitude of DLCO interpretation changes resulting from our multicenter PFT laboratory transition from Miller to GLI reference equations. Study Design and Methods In this multicenter cross-sectional study, we reanalyzed 88,060 DLCO measurements in a large pulmonary function laboratory database performed between 2016 and 2022 using GLI and Miller reference equations, stratified by self-reported race and ethnicity. Baseline patient characteristics and lung function measurements were summarized with continuous characteristics as median (IQR) and categorical variables as n (%). Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate the difference between GLI and Miller DLCO % predicted difference between races, and two-by-two and four-by-four tables were generated to summarize the proportion of concordance and discordance of GLI to Miller severity levels. A repeated measures multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate discordance between GLI and Miller severity and patient characteristics (age, sex, race, and BMI). Results We included 63,357 individuals with 88,060 PFT visits; 91.6% (58,076) identified as Caucasian, 5.2% (3,262) as Black, 1.4 % (895) as Asian, and 1.8% (1,113) as mixed/other race. Fifty-one percent were female with an median age of 64 years (range: 5- 85). 7.4% (6509) of DLCO results were discordant, with 0.5% (n = 439) abnormal by GLI only, and 6.9% (n = 6070) abnormal by Miller only. Compared to the Miller, GLI interpretations were associated with a greater shift toward normal interpretations. Younger age, lower BMI, female sex, and being of NE Asian, SE Asian, or Other/mixed race compared to Caucasian were associated with higher odds of discordance in DLCO severity/normal classification. Interpretation The use of GLI reference equations substantially alters the interpretation of DLCO results, shifting a meaningful subset of patients from abnormal to normal classification. While GLI reference equations offer more comprehensive, population-based approach, it is crucial to place these interpretations within the context of the patient presentation until further investigations more clearly define the clinical implications of these transitions. This abstract is funded by: none

BACKGROUND: Methacholine challenge testing (MCT) is a common bronchoprovocation technique used to assess airway hyper-responsiveness. We previously demonstrated that the addition of a viral filter to the nebulizer exhalation limb substantially reduced expelled particles during MCT. Our aim was to evaluate whether this modification affects the delivered dose of methacholine. METHODS: A mechanical ventilator was connected to a lung simulator with breathing frequency 15 breaths/min, tidal volume 500 mL, inspiratory-expiratory ratio 1:1, with a sinusoidal waveform. We compared methacholine dose delivery using the Hudson Micro Mist or AeroEclipse II BAN nebulizers powered by either a dry gas source or a compressor system. A filter placed in line between the nebulizer and test lung was weighed before and after 1 min of nebulized methacholine delivery. Mean inhaled mass was measured with and without a viral filter on the exhalation limb. Dose delivery was calculated by multiplying the mean inhaled mass by the respirable fraction (particles < 5 μm) and inhalation time. Unpaired t test was used to compare methacholine dose delivery with and without viral filter placement. RESULTS: The addition of a viral filter did not significantly affect methacholine dose delivery across all devices tested. Using a 50-psi dry gas source, dose delivered with or without a viral filter did not differ with the Hudson (422.3 μg vs 282.0 μg, P = .11) or the AeroEclipse nebulizer (563.0 μg vs 657.6 μg, P = .59). Using the compressor, dose delivered with and without a viral filter did not differ with the Hudson (974.0 μg vs 868.0 μg, P = .03) or the AeroEclipse nebulizer (818.0 μg vs 628.5 μg, P = .42). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a viral filter to the nebulizer exhalation limb did not affect methacholine dose during bronchoprovocation testing. Routine use of a viral filter should be considered to improve pulmonary function technician safety and infection control measures during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Methacholine bronchoprovocation or challenge testing (MCT) is commonly performed to assess airway hyper-responsiveness in the setting of suspected asthma. Nebulization is an aerosol-generating procedure, but little is known about the risks of MCT in the context of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to quantify and characterize aerosol generation during MCT by using different delivery methods and to assess the impact of adding a viral filter. METHODS: Seven healthy subjects performed simulated MCT in a near particle-free laboratory space with 4 different nebulizers and with a dosimeter. Two devices continuously sampled the ambient air during the procedure, which detected ultrafine particles, from 0.02–1 μm, and particles of sizes 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, and 10 µm, respectively. Particle generation was compared among all the devices, with and without viral filter placement. RESULTS: Ultrafine-particle generation during simulated MCT was significant across all the devices. Ultrafine-particle (0.02–1 μm) concentrations decreased 77%–91% with the addition of a viral filter and varied significantly between unfiltered (P < .001) and filtered devices (P < .001). Ultrafine-particle generation was lowest when using the dosimeter with filtered Hudson nebulizer (1,258 ± 1,644 particle/mL). Ultrafine-particle concentrations with the filtered nebulizer devices using a compressor were higher than particle concentrations detected when using the dosimeter: Monaghan (3,472 ± 1,794 particles/mL), PARI (4,403 ± 2,948), Hudson (6,320 ± 1,787) and AirLife (9,523 ± 5,098). CONCLUSIONS: The high particle concentrations generated during MCT pose significant infection control concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Particle generation during MCT was significantly reduced by using breath-actuated delivery and a viral filter, which offers an effective mitigation strategy.

BACKGROUND: Peak flow testing is a common procedure performed in ambulatory care. There are currently no data regarding aerosol generation during this procedure. Given the ongoing debate regarding the potential for aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, we aimed to quantify and characterize aerosol generation during peak flow testing. METHODS: Five healthy volunteers performed peak flow maneuvers in a particle-free laboratory space. Two devices continuously sampled the ambient air during the procedure. One device can detect ultrafine particles 0.02–1 μ m in diameter, while the second device can detect particles 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, and 10 μ m in diameter. Five different peak flow meters were compared to ambient baseline during masked and unmasked tidal breathing. RESULTS: Ultrafine particles (0.02–1 μ m) were generated during peak flow measurement. There was no significant difference in ultrafine particle mean concentration between peak flow meters ( P = .23): Respironics (1.25 ± 0.47 particles/mL), Philips (3.06 ± 1.22), Clement Clarke (3.55 ± 1.22 particles/mL), Respironics Low Range (3.50 ± 1.52 particles/mL), and Monaghan (3.78 ± 1.31 particles/mL). Ultrafine particle mean concentration with peak flow testing was significantly higher than masked (0.22 ± 0.29 particles/mL) and unmasked tidal breathing (0.15 ± 0.18 particles/mL, P = .01), but the ultrafine particle concentrations were small compared to ambient particle concentrations in a pulmonary function testing room (89.9 ± 8.95 particles/mL). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, aerosol generation was present during peak flow testing, but concentrations were small compared to the background particle concentration in the ambient clinical environment. Surgical masks and eye protection are likely sufficient infection control measures during peak expiratory flow testing in asymptomatic patients with well controlled respiratory symptoms, but COVID-19 testing remains prudent in patients with acute respiratory symptoms prior to evaluation and peak expiratory flow assessment while the community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 cases remains high.

Objectives: Critically ill surgical patients may receive concomitant aspirin and therapeutic anticoagulation postoperatively, yet the safety of this practice remains unknown. We evaluated the risk of major bleeding with concomitant therapy compared with anticoagulation alone. Design: Observational cohort study. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to assess the association between concomitant therapy and a primary outcome of major bleeding. Setting: Postoperative ICUs at an academic medical center. Patients: Adults (≥ 18 yr old) receiving anticoagulation during postoperative ICU admission between 2007 and 2016. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Nine thousand five hundred eighteen anticoagulated patients were included, including 3,237 (34%) receiving aspirin. A total of 1,874 unique patients (19.7%) experienced a major bleeding event. In inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses, concomitant therapy was associated with increased odds for major bleeding (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05–1.36; p = 0.006) compared with anticoagulation alone. An interaction test suggested a differential relationship between aspirin use and major bleeding based on aspirin use in the 7 days prior to anticoagulation, such that a strong association between aspirin and major bleeding was observed for recent initiators of aspirin (1.40; 1.13–1.72;p = 0.002) but not for those continuing prior aspirin use. Aspirin use prior to anticoagulation did not modify the relationship between concomitant therapy and new myocardial infarction or stroke (i.e., rates were not increased with aspirin discontinuation prior to anticoagulation). Conclusions: Concomitant aspirin and anticoagulation in critically ill surgical patients was associated with an increased rate of major bleeding. Future investigations are warranted to further define optimal management of antiplatelet therapy during anticoagulation in surgical patients.