Cited by 100Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchAsthma and respiratory diseasesCystic Fibrosis Research Advances

Diffusing Capacity of Carbon Monoxide in Assessment of COPD

Open access
Balasubramanian, Aparna, MacIntyre, Neil R., Henderson, Robert J., Jensen, Robert L., Kinney, Gregory, Stringer, William W., Hersh, Craig P., Bowler, Russell P. +7 more·2019·Chest

Abstract

Background Diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (Dlco) is inconsistently obtained in patients with COPD, and the added benefit of Dlco testing beyond that of more common tools is unknown. Objective The goal of this study was to determine whether lower Dlco is associated with increased COPD morbidity independent of emphysema assessed via spirometry and CT imaging. Methods Data for 1,806 participants with COPD from the Genetic Epidemiology of COPD (COPDGene) study 5-year visit were analyzed, including pulmonary function testing, quality of life, symptoms, exercise performance, and exacerbation rates. Dlco percent predicted was primarily analyzed as a continuous variable and additionally categorized into four groups: (1) Dlco and FEV 1 > 50% (reference); (2) only Dlco ≤ 50%; (3) only FEV 1 ≤ 50%; and (4) both ≤ 50% predicted. Outcomes were modeled by using multivariable linear and negative binomial regression, including emphysema and FEV 1 percent predicted among other confounders. Results In multivariable analyses, every 10% predicted decrease in Dlco was associated with symptoms and quality of life (COPD Assessment Test, 0.53 [P < .001]; St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, 1.67 [P < .001]; Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Physical Function, -0.89 [P < .001]), exercise performance (6-min walk distance, -45.35 feet; P < .001), and severe exacerbation rate (rate ratio, 1.14; P < .001). When categorized, severe impairment in Dlco alone, FEV 1 alone, or both Dlco and FEV 1 were associated with significantly worse morbidity compared with the reference group (P < .05 for all outcomes). Conclusions Impairment in Dlco was associated with increased COPD symptoms, reduced exercise performance, and severe exacerbation risk even after accounting for spirometry and CT evidence of emphysema. These findings suggest that Dlco should be considered for inclusion in future multidimensional tools assessing COPD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chest.2019.06.035

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • DLCO is not a criterion for lung transplantation, although it can be considered in patients with severe symptoms accompanied by low DLCO or decreased exercise capacity.

    “Diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) is not a criterion for lung transplantation, although it can be considered in patients with severe symptoms accompanied by low DLCO or decreased exercise capacity.”

    From Indications for Lung Transplantation and Patient Selection (2022) · cites this paper as [43]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Balasubramanian, A., MacIntyre, N. R., Henderson, R. J., Jensen, R. L., Kinney, G., Stringer, W. W., Hersh, C. P., Bowler, R. P., Casaburi, R., Han, M. K., Porszasz, J., Barr, R. G., Make, B. J., Wise, R. A., & McCormack, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Colorado School of Public Health (US)
  • The Lundquist Institute (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • National Jewish Health (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
McCormack, Meredith C.
Venue
Chest
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
156
Issue
6
Pages
1111-1119
ISSN
0012-3692 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2963594894
Cited by
100
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 1
FWCI
8.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHEST Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • National Jewish Health
  • Novartis (24/7)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NCT00608764, T32 HL007534-36, U01 HL089856, U01 HL089897)
  • MedImmune
  • North Carolina GlaxoSmithKline Foundation
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
  • COPD Foundation
  • Astellas Pharma US
  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
  • AstraZeneca
  • Sunovion
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Keywords
diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, FEV1, COPD exacerbations, exercise performance, quality of life, COPD symptoms, lung function impairment
MeSH terms
Aged, Carbon Monoxide, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Forced Expiratory Volume, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pulmonary Diffusing Capacity, Respiratory Function Tests, Spirometry, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review