Publication:
Volatile organic compound profiles in outlet air from extracorporeal lifesupport devices differ from breath profiles in critically ill patients

dc.contributor.authorJan Hendrik Leopolden_US
dc.contributor.authorAlois Philippen_US
dc.contributor.authorThomas Beinen_US
dc.contributor.authorAndreas Redelen_US
dc.contributor.authorMichael Gruberen_US
dc.contributor.authorMarcus J. Schultzen_US
dc.contributor.authorAmeen Abu-Hannaen_US
dc.contributor.authorPaul Brinkmanen_US
dc.contributor.authorHans Gerd Janssenen_US
dc.contributor.authorLieuwe D.J. Bosen_US
dc.contributor.otherKlinikum der Universität Regensburg und Medizinische Fakultäten_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversiteit van Amsterdamen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-27T09:58:11Z
dc.date.available2020-01-27T09:58:11Z
dc.date.issued2019-04-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© ERS 2019. Introduction: It is highly uncertain whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath of critically ill intensive care unit patients are formed in the lung locally, in the air compartment or lung tissue, or elsewhere in the body and transported to the lung via the bloodstream. We compared VOC mixtures in exhaled breath and in air coming from extracorporeal support devices in critically ill patients to address this issue. Methods: First, we investigated whether it was safe to connect an electronic nose (eNose) or a gas sampling pump to extracorporeal support membranes. Then, breath and air from extracorporeal support devices were collected simultaneously for continuous monitoring of VOC mixtures using an eNose. In addition, samples for gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis were taken daily at the two measurement sites. Results: 10 critically ill patients were monitored for a median (interquartile range) duration of 73 (72-113) h; in total, we had 887 h of air sampling. The eNose signals of breath correlated moderately with signals of air from the extracorporeal support devices (R2=0.25-0.44). After GC-MS analysis, 96 VOCs were found both in breath and air from the extracorporeal support devices; of these, 29 (30%) showed a significant correlation (p<0.05) between the two measurement sites, of which 17 were identified. VOCs that did not correlate were found in a higher concentration in breath than in air from the extracorporeal support devices. Conclusion: This study suggests VOC analysis in the extracorporeal circulation is safe, and that VOCs of nonpulmonary origin can be measured in the breath and in the extracorporeal circulation of critically ill patients. For VOCs that did not correlate between the two measurement sites, the breath concentration was higher, suggesting pulmonary production of these molecules in a highly selected population of patients that received extracorporeal support.en_US
dc.identifier.citationERS Monograph. Vol.5, No.2 (2019)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1183/23120541.00134-2018en_US
dc.identifier.issn23125098en_US
dc.identifier.issn2312508Xen_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85065974410en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/51763
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85065974410&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleVolatile organic compound profiles in outlet air from extracorporeal lifesupport devices differ from breath profiles in critically ill patientsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85065974410&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections