Letter to editor - (2014)13, 219 - 220 |
Acoustic Analysis of Breath Sounds as a Surrogate for Gas Exchange Thresholds |
Amanda J Peterson1, Carl Foster1, Nirinjan B. Yee2, Charalampos C. Stamatopolous2, Panos Giotis2, Glenn A. Wright1, Scott T. Doberstein1, John P. Porcari1 |
Dear Editor-in-chief |
Respiratory gas exchange threshold measurements are a reference standard for measuring sustainable exercise capacity (McLellan and Skinner, The subjects were healthy young adults aged 18- 55 (males n = 9, females n = 11). The university human subjects committee approved protocol and the subjects provided written informed consent prior to participation. The subjects performed two incremental cycle ergometer exercise tests until maximal exertion, with at least 24 hr between tests. Power Output began at 25W and was incremented 25 W every two minutes. HR and the Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) were recorded during the last thirty seconds of each stage using radiotelemetry and RPE was measured using the Category Ratio scale. Breath sound recordings were captured using a small microphone inserted into a Hans Rudolph breathing valve through the saliva port. Acoustic analysis from the last 30s of each exercise stage was analyzed from digital recordings for breathing frequency and a variable referred to as ‘intensity‘ (obtained from the expiratory phase of the acoustic signature); which is conceptually similar to tidal volume divided by the expiratory time. Blinded to information from respiratory gas analysis, the acoustic signature was analyzed based on the first derivative of change in breathing frequency and sound intensity. Candidates for the VT and RCT were identified and compared to the VT and RCT defined from respiratory gas analysis using standard methods (Foster and Cotter, There were small, but significant, differences in the gas exchange vs acoustic analysis for power output (PO) at VT (105 ± 37 vs 111 ± 30W, r = 0.66) and RCT (174 ± 40 vs 162 ± 34W, r = 0.79) and HR at VT (114 ± 14 vs 119 ± 11 bpm, r = 0.74) and RCT (148 ± 16 vs 142 ± 14 bpm, r = 0.84) ( Reliability estimates of PO@VT by gas exchange (104 ± 40 vs 107 ± 36 W, ICC = 0.62) and RCT (179 ± 46 vs 176 ± 40 W, ICC = 0.75) and by acoustic analysis for VT (109 ± 31 vs 111 ± 32 W, ICC = 0.75) and RCT (161 ± 37 vs 163 ± 29 W, ICC = 0.77) suggest excellent reliability ( The data support the concept that a simple analysis of breath sounds during exercise can provide a plausable surrogate of physiologic threshold events measured using respiratory gas exchange. As such, the acoustic analysis may provide a simple method for making threshold measurements, which may be useful for both diagnosis and exercise prescription. |