Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cardiac output (Q̇) is a fundamental physiological variable but remains challenging to measure. Exercise Q̇ is commonly measured by inert gas rebreathing using acetylene or nitrous oxide (Q̇ N 2 O-IGR ) and impedance cardiography (Q̇ IC ), but device measurement error has not been assessed at different workloads or in females. This study determined the precision of Q̇ N 2 O-IGR (Innocor, COSMED Inc., USA) and Q̇ IC (Physioflow Enduro, Manatec Biomedical, France) in duplicate in 60 adults (30 females; 22 ± 5 years; V̇O 2max : 41.2 ± 8.6 mL . kg −1. min −1 ) during upright rest and cycling at 50 W and 90% peak power output (PPO) (277 ± 71 W). Measurement variance was higher for Q̇ N 2 O-IGR vs. Q̇ IC ( p < 0.0001), at 90% PPO compared to 50 W at rest ( p < 0.001), and in males vs. females at 50 W with Q̇ N 2 O-IGR ( p = 0.005). At rest the typical error (TE), coefficient of variation (CV), and intraclass correlation (ICC) were 0.6 L/min (12.4%), 11.6 ± 8.5%, and 0.75 [0.62–0.82] for Q̇ N 2 O-IGR and 0.4 L/min (6.9%), 7.5 ± 8.4, and 0.87 [0.79–0.92] for Q̇ IC . At 50 W, the TE, CV, and ICC were 0.8 L/min (7.7%), 5.4 ± 5.8%, and 0.79 [0.68–0.87] for Q̇ N 2 O-IGR and 0.5 L/min (5.6%), 3.7 ± 3.8%, and 0.85 [0.76–0.91] for Q̇ IC . At 90% PPO, TE, CV, and ICC were 1.2 L/min (7.5%), 5.4 ± 4.3%, and 0.89 [0.82–0.93] for Q̇ N 2 O-IGR and 0.7 L/min (4.0%), 5.0 ± 3.2%, 0.96 [0.93–0.98] for Q̇ IC . Duplicate Q̇ N 2 O-IGR differed up to ∼4 L/min (38%) and Q̇ IC ∼3 L/min (24%). In conclusion, group-level measurement precision was generally better for Q̇ IC than Q̇ N 2 O-IGR but depended on workload and sex. Duplicate Q̇ N 2 O-IGR and Q̇ IC differed substantially; therefore, repeat measures are important.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McCarthy et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: