The hypercapnic ventilatory response measured with a rebreathing and steady-state apparatus in healthy subjects

Effects of increasing/decreasing levels of CO2 on ventilation can be studied
using the hypercapnic ventilatory response (HCVR). In various patient groups
the HCVR is disturbed. Two methods are known to measure the HCVR, the
rebreathing and steady-state method. Both methods can measure the ventilation
response to CO2, therefore in this study the two methods will be compared.
Computer controlled systems are not available for use, due to high costs to
persuade or built them. In this study two self-made apparatuses are built,
based on literature. The aim of the study is to find out which method is to be
implemented in the clinic, as a diagnostic tool, on basis of the repeatability
of both tests.

The primary objective is to investigate whether the rebreathing apparatus or
the steady-state apparatus should be used as a diagnostic tool in the MST. The
primary objective is answer by means of sub questions, which involve; the
repeatability of both methods, experiences of the subjects, costs and time
duration of both methods.

The performed study has a diagnostic design, although the purpose of the study
is not to diagnose.

nvt

The researched population does not benefit from participation in the study. In
contrast, MST and in particular the pulmonology department benefits from this
study. In both methods, high CO2 levels are maintained. The main risk of high
CO2 level can be decreased, by closely monitoring the CO2 level, to interrupt
the test when PETCO2 level are transcends 8.5 kPa or when the subject is not
feeling well. A potential risk of the steady-state method there is a risk of
inhalation of the CO2 absorber, which is overcome by placing an anti-bacterial
filter between the subject and the CO2 absorber canister. The risk of
inhalation harmful substances from the silicone parts is overcome by
sterilization of the silicone parts.