Skip to main content
Respiratory Care logoLink to Respiratory Care
. 2023 Dec;68(12):1662–1674. doi: 10.4187/respcare.11147

Systemic Determinants of Exercise Intolerance in Patients With Fibrotic Interstitial Lung Disease and Severely Impaired DLCO

Reginald M Smyth 1, Matthew D James 2, Sandra G Vincent 3, Kathryn M Milne 4, Mathieu Marillier 5, Nicolle J Domnik 6, Christopher M Parker 7, Juan P de-Torres 8, Onofre Moran-Mendoza 9, Devin B Phillips 10, Denis E O’Donnell 11, J Alberto Neder 12,
PMCID: PMC10676244  PMID: 37643871

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The precise mechanisms driving poor exercise tolerance in patients with fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (fibrotic ILDs) showing a severe impairment in single-breath lung diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO < 40% predicted) are not fully understood. Rather than only reflecting impaired O2 transfer, a severely impaired DLCO may signal deranged integrative physiologic adjustments to exercise that jointly increase the burden of exertional symptoms in fibrotic ILD.

METHODS:

Sixty-seven subjects (46 with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, 24 showing DLCO < 40%) and 22 controls underwent pulmonary function tests and an incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test with serial measurements of operating lung volumes and 0–10 Borg dyspnea and leg discomfort scores.

RESULTS:

Subjects from the DLCO < 40% group showed lower spirometric values, more severe restriction, and lower alveolar volume and transfer coefficient compared to controls and participants with less impaired DLCO (P < .05). Peak work rate was ∼45% (vs controls) and ∼20% (vs DLCO > 40%) lower in the former group, being associated with lower (and flatter) O2 pulse, an earlier lactate (anaerobic) threshold, heightened submaximal ventilation, and lower SpO2. Moreover, critically high inspiratory constrains were reached at lower exercise intensities in the DLCO < 40% group (P < .05). In association with the greatest leg discomfort scores, they reported the highest dyspnea scores at a given work rate. Between-group differences lessened or disappeared when dyspnea intensity was related to indexes of increased demand-capacity imbalance, that is, decreasing submaximal, dynamic ventilatory reserve, and inspiratory reserve volume/total lung capacity (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS:

A severely reduced DLCO in fibrotic ILD signals multiple interconnected derangements (cardiovascular impairment, an early shift to anaerobic metabolism, excess ventilation, inspiratory constraints, and hypoxemia) that ultimately lead to limiting respiratory (dyspnea) and peripheral (leg discomfort) symptoms. DLCO < 40%, therefore, might help in clinical decision-making to indicate the patient with fibrotic ILD who might derive particular benefit from pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions aimed at lessening these systemic abnormalities.

Keywords: dyspnea, exercise testing, interstitial lung disease, gas exchange, lung mechanics

Introduction

Fibrotic interstitial lung disease (fibrotic ILD) is an umbrella term used to describe patients with ILD who, independent of the specific etiology, at some point in time exhibit a progressive fibrosing phenotype.1,2 Longitudinal loss of lung function is part of the fibrotic ILD definition, and most patients eventually decrease their daily activities due to poor exercise tolerance.3 The consequence is a vicious circle of progressive disablement4 and reduced quality of life.5 It is crucial, therefore, to identify pulmonary function testing (PFT) parameters that can be used in clinical practice to predict a high burden of activity-related symptoms and exercise intolerance in these patients.6,7

In this context, a severely impaired (< 40% predicted) single-breath lung diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO)8,9 has long been recognized as a marker of disease progression across all fibrotic ILD etiologies.10 The underlying mechanisms and their connection with clinical outcomes (ie, activity-related symptoms), however, are still not fully understood. Although patients with markedly reduced DLCO present with worst hypoxemia on exertion,6,7,11 there is a wide variability on exercise tolerance and breathlessness at a given PaO2.12-14 DLCO is a metric of gas transfer that is strongly influenced by the accessible alveolar volume (VA),15,16 which, in turn, depends on the severity of the associated restriction (total lung capacity [TLC] decrement)10 and potential heterogeneity of ventilation distribution17,18 decreasing the VA/TLC ratio.16 DLCO does correlate well with the anatomical underpinnings of the disease, that is, fibrosis extension.6,7,11 Of note, a severely impaired DLCO has been associated with exercise-related pulmonary hypertension in diffuse parenchymal lung disease;19-21 moreover, those with more pronounced abnormalities in skeletal muscle structure and function show particularly low DLCO.22,23 The corollary is that DLCO < 40% might signal marked decrements in O2 delivery to and utilization by the contracting skeletal muscles,24 contributing to increased neuromuscular (contractile) fatigue,25 an early lactate (anaerobic) threshold,19 and, consequently, a heightened sensation of leg discomfort.4 It is conceivable, therefore, that rather than just reflecting impaired O2 transfer across the alveolar-capillary membrane16 a severely reduced DLCO is a marker of multiple interconnected respiratory and non-respiratory derangements that jointly conspire to increase the burden of exertional symptoms and, consequently, exercise intolerance in fibrotic ILD.

To explore this overarching hypothesis, we aimed to contrast the physiological (cardiovascular, skeletal muscle metabolism, ventilatory requirements, operating lung volumes, pulmonary gas exchange) and sensory (dyspnea and leg discomfort) responses to incremental exercise in subjects with fibrotic ILD showing a severely impaired DLCO versus those with mildly-to-moderately reduced DLCO (ie, ≥ 40%) and non–fibrotic ILD controls of similar sex and age distribution. We postulated that the lowest exercise tolerance shown by subjects in the former group would be associated with (1) greater cardiovascular impairment, (2) an earlier anaerobic threshold, (3) heightened exertional ventilation, (4) more severe mechanical-inspiratory constraints, and (5) worse exertional hypoxemia, leading to a greater cumulative burden of (6) respiratory (dyspnea) and (7) non-respiratory (leg discomfort) sensations. Confirmation of the study hypothesis would provide a solid rationale for DLCO as a key PFT parameter to expose the pulmonary and systemic consequences of fibrotic ILD.

QUICK LOOK.

Current knowledge

A severely reduced single-breath lung diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO < 40%) has long been associated with exertional hypoxemia in fibrotic lung diseases (fibrotic ILDs). Rather than only indicating impaired O2 transfer, however, DLCO < 40% might serve as a physiological marker of interconnected respiratory and non-respiratory abnormalities that increase the burden of exertional symptoms and, consequently, poor exercise tolerance in fibrotic ILD.

What this paper contributes to our knowledge

DLCO < 40% was associated with deranged cardiovascular/metabolic, mechanical-ventilatory, and gas exchange adjustments to exercise that increased the severity of respiratory (dyspnea) and peripheral (leg discomfort) symptoms in fibrotic ILD. Since patients showing DLCO < 40% might derive particular benefit from interventions aimed at lessening these systemic abnormalities, our data provide support for the relevance of DLCO in helping clinical decision-making in pulmonology.

Methods

Participants

This was a cross-sectional study enrolling 67 participants followed in a multidisciplinary clinic specialized in the care of patients with ILD at Kingston Health Science Center, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. They were prospectively recruited to take part in ethically approved physiological studies.26-28 Data and participant informed consent were obtained during the initial screening visits to assess eligibility for these studies, but there is no overlap with the current analysis. All subjects had an ILD in which the fibrotic component might progress over time. In keeping with this fibrotic ILD definition,2 subjects had idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (n = 46), non-specific interstitial pneumonia (n = 10), chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (n = 4), autoimmune/connective tissue disease–related ILD (n = 3), unclassifiable idiopathic interstitial pneumonia (n = 2), and sarcoidosis (n = 2). As common denominators, they showed (1) no evidence of pulmonary hypertension in a recent (within 6 months) transthoracic echocardiogram, (2) absence of musculoskeletal abnormalities that could limit exercise tolerance, and (3) no change in medication or exacerbations requiring oral or intravenous steroids (or another anti-inflammatory therapy) in the 8 weeks preceding study enrollment. Since smoking is highly prevalent in patients with IPF and other fibrotic ILDs,1,2 we did not exclude those with visually quantified mild emphysema29 to improve the external validity of our results. To further minimize the confounding effects of extensive emphysema on DLCO, no subject presented with radiographic abnormalities consistent with combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema. Twenty-two age- and sex-matched historical controls (age ≥ 40 and presenting with all respiratory functional data at or above the lower limit of normal) were also enrolled. The current study received ethical approval from the Queen’s University and Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Ethics Board (DMED-01659-13).

Procedures

The Modified 0–4 Medical Research Council (mMRC) classification gradated participants’ activity-related dyspnea. PFTs (including dynamic and static lung volumes and hemoglobin-corrected single-breath DLCO) were performed according to standard techniques and compared to reference values established by the Global Lung Function Initiative.30-32 Maximal voluntary ventilation was estimated (MVVest) as FEV1 x 40 (L/min). Incremental cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to symptom limitation (10–20 W increase every 2 min) was conducted on an electronically braked cycle ergometer with dynamic inspiratory capacity (ICdyn) measurements at each work-rate step.33 The anaerobic threshold was identified based on the V-slope (CO2 output [V̇CO2]-O2 uptake [V̇O2]) plot with corroboratory evidence from the standard ventilatory method. The minute ventilation (V̇E)-V̇CO2 relationship assessed ventilatory (in)efficiency, herein termed excess ventilation.34 We report the frequency of subjects showing the lowest V̇E-V̇CO2 (nadir) ≥ 34 or ≥ 40 since these cutoffs were associated with more severe exertional dyspnea and important patient-centered negative outcomes in COPD.35 O2 saturation was estimated by SpO2. The intensity of the ventilatory output relative to its theoretical limits (dynamic ventilatory reserve [VRdyn]) was calculated as [1−(submaximal V̇E/MVV)] × 100.36 The severity of mechanical constraints to tidal expansion was calculated based on the tidal volume (VT)/ICdyn, end-inspiratory lung volume, and inspiratory reserve volume (IRV)/TLC ratios.33 Since the rate of increase in VT as a function of V̇E may become blunted in the presence of critically high inspiratory constraints,33 we individually determined the VT-V̇E inflection point. Borg leg discomfort and dyspnea ratings (0–10 category ratio scale) were also obtained at each work rate. VRdyn and dyspnea scores at the highest equivalent work rate across all groups (60 W) were compared to sex- and age-adjusted normative data, as established in our laboratory.36,37 Scores > 75th percentile indicate very severe dyspnea burden.37

Statistical Analysis

Given multiple outcomes, we were unable to a priori power our study. Based on our previous investigations in fibrotic ILD, however, a sample size of at least 18 subjects with fibrotic ILD in each category and 18 controls was deemed sufficient to detect the minimal clinically important difference of 1 Borg unit in dyspnea at the highest equivalent work rate (60 W) achieved by all participants38 (SD = 1, α = 0.05, and β = 0.80). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Bonferroni test and chi-square test (for categorical variables) assessed between-group differences in participant characteristics, resting lung function, and selected CPET variables. Two-way repeated measure ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc multiple comparisons was used to evaluate the effect of group (fixed factor) on key dependent variables during incremental exercise (repeated factor). Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

Results

General Characteristics and Resting Lung Function

Controls and subjects were well matched by demographic and anthropometric characteristics, though body mass index (BMI) was numerically higher in the fibrotic ILD groups (E-Table 1, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). As expected, most subjects reported a history of (usually cigarette) smoking. More participants in the DLCO < 40% group reported severe dyspnea on daily life (mMRC score ≥ 3) compared to the other groups. The former group showed the lowest spirometric values and static lung volumes; whereas approximately half of the DLCO ≥ 40% group had mild restriction, 3 of 4 participants in the DLCO < 40% group showed moderate-to-severe decrements in TLC (P < .001). Lower DLCO in the latter group was associated with lower VA and VA/TLC ratio: As DLCO decreased to a greater extent than VA, these subjects showed the lowest transfer coefficient (κCO) (P < .001) (E-Table 1, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com).

Exercise Tolerance

Peak exercise capacity, either expressed as work rate or V̇O2, was lower in the DLCO < 40% group compared to other subjects and controls (both P < .001) (Table 1 and E-Fig. 1A, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). For instance, the frequency of subjects showing peak work rate and/or peak V̇O2 below the lower limit of normal was 2-fold greater in the DLCO < 40% group compared to their counterparts with higher DLCO (Table 1).

Table 1.

Peak and Submaximal Physiological and Sensory Responses to Incremental Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Controls and Subjects With Fibrotic Interstitial Lung Disease Separated by the Severity of Diffusing Capacity for Carbon Monoxide Impairment

graphic file with name DE-RESC230162T01a.jpg

graphic file with name DE-RESC230162T01b.jpg

Metabolic and Cardiovascular Responses to Exercise

Despite no between-group differences in V̇O2-work-rate slope (typically between 9–11 mL/min/W in both groups) (E-Fig. 1A, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com), V̇CO2 increased at a faster rate than V̇O2 beginning at early exercise in the DLCO < 40% group (E-Fig. 1B–1C, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com), that is, the DLCO < 40% group demonstrated a higher respiratory exchange ratio (RER) at a given exercise intensity (E-Fig. 1D, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). This was also influenced by an earlier anaerobic threshold either as a function of V̇O2 or work rate (Table 1). Given similar V̇O2 at a given exercise intensity (E-Fig. 1A, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com) but a steeper heart rate-V̇O2 slope (Table 1), subjects showed lower submaximal and peak O2 pulse than controls, a finding particularly pronounced in those showing DLCO < 40% (E-Fig. 1F, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com) (Table 1). Interestingly, subjects in the latter group showed a consistent upward inflection in heart rate close to peak exercise (E-Fig. 1E), resulting in a downward shift in O2 pulse (E-Fig. 1F, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com).

Ventilatory and Gas Exchange Responses to Exercise

Subjects from the DLCO < 40% group showed significantly higher V̇E at a given work rate (Fig. 1A) and metabolic demand (V̇CO2) (Fig. 1B). Thus, V̇E/V̇CO2 was consistently higher throughout exercise (Fig. 1C), and VRdyn lower (Fig. 1D), in these subjects compared to the other groups (P < .05). In fact, a significantly higher fraction of subjects showing DLCO < 40% had moderate (≥ 34) and severe (≥ 40) increases in V̇E/V̇CO2 and VRdyn below the sex- and age-adjusted lower limit of normal36 at the highest equivalent work rate of 60 W (both P < .001) (Table 1). These abnormalities were associated with lower end-tidal partial pressure for CO2 (PETCO2) (Fig. 1E) and SpO2 (Fig. 1F) throughout exercise in the former group (P < .05).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Ventilatory (panels A-B and D) and gas exchange (panels C and E-F) responses to incremental exercise in subjects with fibrotic interstitial lung disease with or without a severely decreased diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) and sex- and age-matched healthy controls. Triangles are values at the tidal volume inflection point, reflecting critically high inspiratory constraints. Data are mean ± SD. P values are for main effect according to 2-way analysis of variance for repeated measures. Significant (P < .05) Bonferroni adjusted post hoc between-group comparisons are indicated by * = DLCO ≥ 40% versus controls; † = DLCO < 40% versus controls; ‡ = DLCO < 40% versus DLCO ≥ 40%. DLCO = diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide; V̇E = minute ventilation; V̇CO2 = carbon dioxide output; VRdyn = dynamic ventilatory reserve; PETCO2 = end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide.

Operating Lung Volumes and Breathing Pattern During Exercise

As expected by the restrictive abnormalities (E-Table 1, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com), both groups showed a downward shift in their absolute (L) operating lung volumes but higher end-inspiratory lung volumes as a percentage TLC compared to controls (Figs. 2A-2C and 2D-2F, respectively) (P < .05). The DLCO < 40% group reached similar end-exercise end-inspiratory lung volume/TLC (Fig. 2D-2F) at significantly lower peak work rate (Table 1) compared to DLCO ≥ 40% (P < .001). Similar VT (E-Fig. 2A, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com) in the setting of an ICdyn ∼0.2–0.3 L lower (Table 1) implied a consistent trend to higher VT/ICdyn ratio throughout exercise in the DLCO < 40% group (E-Fig. 2B, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). In fact, critically high inspiratory constraints (VT/ICdyn 70–80%) occurred at work rates ∼10–15 W lower in this group (Table 1 for VT/ICdyn and end-inspiratory lung volume/TLC/peak work-rate ratios). In keeping with greater inspiratory constraints, a faster breathing frequency (P < .001) (E-Fig. 2C-2D, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com) was instrumental to explain the higher V̇E shown by the DLCO < 40% group (Fig. 1A–1D). In association with a faster breathing frequency, both the inspiratory (TI) and expiratory time were significantly lower in the latter group (E-Fig. 2E-2F, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com): Given similar TI/total respiratory time (E-Fig. 2G, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com), the DLCO< 40% group showed higher mean inspiratory flows (VT/TI) (P < .05) (E-Fig. 2H, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Absolute (panels A-C) and relative to total lung capacity (panels E-F) operating lung volumes during incremental exercise in subjects with fibrotic interstitial lung disease with or without a severely decreased diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) and sex- and age-matched healthy controls. Triangles are values at the tidal volume inflection point, reflecting critically high inspiratory constraints. Data are mean ± SD. P values are for main effect according to 2-way analysis of variance for repeated measures. Significant (P < .05) Bonferroni adjusted post hoc between-group comparisons are indicated by * = DLCO ≥ 40% versus controls; † = DLCO < 40% versus controls; ‡ = DLCO < 40% versus DLCO ≥ 40%. DLCO = diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide; EELV = end-expiratory lung volume; TLC = total lung capacity.

Sensory Responses to Exercise

Subjects from the DLCO < 40% group reported the highest leg discomfort scores during submaximal exercise (E-Fig. 1G-1H, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com), a finding particularly noticeable at higher exercise intensities. For instance, a 3-fold lower variation in work rate in the DLCO < 40% group (60W–70W) compared to DLCO ≥ 40% (60W–90W) led to the same increase in mean leg discomfort scores (3–5) (E-Fig. 1G, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). Given a leftward shift in the submaximal dyspnea–work-rate relationship (Fig. 3A), the DLCO < 40% group showed significantly steeper dyspnea-work rate and dyspnea-V̇O2 slopes compared to their counterparts and controls (P = .006) (Table 1). Moreover, a higher fraction of subjects in the DLCO < 40% group reported dyspnea scores in the very severe range when compared to normative data37 (P = .005) (Table 1). In contrast, dyspnea-V̇E relationship did not differ between the 2 fibrotic ILD groups (P = .26) (Table 1, Fig. 3B). Interestingly, the differences in dyspnea scores between subjects and controls as exercise progressed were markedly reduced versus decreasing ventilatory reserves (VRdyn; Fig. 3C), lacking statistical significance against lowering inspiratory reserves (IRV/TLC; Fig. 3D).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Borg dyspnea scores as a function of exercise intensity (panel A), ventilatory output (panel B), and submaximal ventilatory (panel C) and volume (panel D) reserves in subjects with fibrotic interstitial lung disease with or without a severely decreased diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) and sex- and age-matched healthy controls. Triangles are values at the tidal volume inflection point, reflecting critically high inspiratory constraints. Data are mean ± SD. P values are for main effect according to 2-way analysis of variance for repeated measures. Significant (P < .05) Bonferroni adjusted post hoc between-group comparisons are indicated by * = DLCO ≥ 40% versus controls; † = DLCO < 40% versus controls; ‡ = DLCO < 40% versus DLCO ≥ 40%. DLCO = diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide; V̇E = minute ventilation; VRdyn = dynamic ventilatory reserve; IRV = inspiratory reserve volume; TLC = total lung capacity.

Discussion

The current study shed novel light into the physiological and sensory mechanisms by which a severely reduced single-breath DLCO (< 40%) indicates more pronounced impairment in exercise tolerance in subjects showing the common phenotype of fibrotic ILD.1,2 As we a priori postulated, such a severe decrement in gas transfer marked interconnected systemic abnormalities in cardiocirculatory (tachycardia relative to V̇O2), metabolic (earlier shift to anaerobic metabolism), ventilatory (excess ventilation), lung-mechanical (inspiratory constraints), and pulmonary gas exchange (hypoxemia and hyperventilation) adjustments to exercise that were translated into a higher burden of respiratory (breathlessness) and peripheral (leg discomfort) symptoms. In association with our previous results showing the clinical relevance of a low DLCO in the initial stages of fibrotic ILD,27,39 these data expose the key role of DLCO as a physiological biomarker of activity-related impairment across the spectrum of disease severity.

Resting Functional Abnormalities According to the Severity of DLCO Impairment in fibrotic ILD

The DLCO < 40% group showed significantly lower spirometric values and more relevant restrictive abnormalities compared to their counterparts with higher DLCO (E-Table 1). Statistically lower vital capacity and numerically lower IC, in particular, were secondary to greater decrements in TLC than residual volume and functional residual capacity, respectively. Thus, subjects from the DLCO < 40% group started exercising with relatively smaller room for VT expansion,33 a finding that strongly contributes to exertional dyspnea in these subjects (also see Inspiratory Constraints on Exertion and a Severely Reduced DLCO in fibrotic ILD).27 Lower resting lung volumes also imply that part of the severe impairment in DLCO can be ascribed to lower distribution volume, that is, VA (E-Table 1, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). Interestingly, lower VA/TLC ratio indicates a greater degree of ventilation distribution abnormalities, further reducing DLCO.40 VA/TLC is thought to be influenced by distributive abnormalities at the level of the small airways.41 Future studies using more specific tests of small airway function42 are warranted to link any abnormalities with their putative structural underpinning, eg, architectural distortion, traction bronchiolectasis.43 Out-of-proportion decreases in DLCO relative to volume loss (that is, lower KCO) points out impaired gas exchange efficiency and likely pulmonary vascular abnormalities,20 both leading to a high V̇E/V̇CO234 (also see Excess Exertional Ventilation and a Severely Reduced DLCO in fibrotic ILD). Jointly, lower lung volumes, thickened alveolar-capillary membrane in more severe subjects, disturbed pulmonary blood flow,10 and ventilation distribution inhomogeneities resulting in ventilation/perfusion (V̇/Q̇) mismatch may have contributed to markedly slowing the rate of CO transfer in the DLCO < 40% group.

Excess Exertional Ventilation and a Severely Reduced DLCO in fibrotic ILD

Excess ventilation has been described in a plethora of cardiopulmonary diseases in which breathlessness and exercise intolerance are dominant features.34,44,45 Both inefficient ventilation (ie, increased wasted ventilation in areas of physiological dead space [VDphys])46 and alveolar hyperventilation (low PaCO2)47,48 may explain a high V̇E/V̇CO2 in these subjects.38,41 In the current study, excess ventilation, even at rest, was a noticeable abnormality in the DLCO < 40% group (Fig. 1C). As mentioned, DLCO and VDphys share the commonality of being influenced by V̇/Q̇ mismatch,49 particularly the extension of areas of high V̇/Q̇, that is, dead-space effect.46 Areas of low V̇/Q̇ (shunt effect), a key determinant of hypoxemia as seen in fibrotic ILD,18 also contribute to decrease DLCO and increase Bohr-Enghoff VDphys.46 Fibrotic tissue deposition, architectural distortion, increased axial airway traction, patchy foci of enlarged air spaces, and vascular obliteration/dysfunction10 common to all fibrotic ILDs1,2 may provide the structural substrate to V̇/Q̇ disturbances, high VDphys, and low PaO2 that contributed to the highest V̇E/V̇CO2 shown by the DLCO < 40% group (Table 1, Fig. 1D).50

It should be recognized, however, that the DLCO < 40% group showed higher RER since the earlier stages of exercise (E-Fig. 1D, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com), that is, hyperventilation well before any compensatory respiratory alkalosis to metabolic acidosis. Although we did not measure the source of carotid chemostimulation on hypoxia, a low PaO2,45 SpO2 was only mildly reduced at these low exercise intensities, that is, ≥ 90% (Fig. 1F). Thus, other sources of ventilatory (over)stimulation likely contributed to a high V̇E/V̇CO2 in the DLCO < 40% group, eg, increased central chemosensitivity (low CO2 set point), airway-lung-chest-wall mechano(vagal) receptors overactivity,51,52 heightened ergo receptor discharge45 (also see Heightened Leg Discomfort on Exertion and a Severely Reduced DLCO in fibrotic ILD), and increased pulmonary vascular pressures.53 It is also noteworthy that a high VDphys frequently coexists with a low PaCO2, exposing the challenges faced by the central controller to stabilize mean alveolar PCO2 when ventilatory output is not readily translated into the expected increase in alveolar ventilation.43,47 In any case, the lowest (Fig. 1E) and blunted (lower rest-apex difference in Table 1) PETCO2 in the DLCO < 40% group may have resulted from expired PCO2 dilution due to enlarged VDphys/impaired perfusion plus alveolar hyperventilation.46

Inspiratory Constraints on Exertion and a Severely Reduced DLCO in fibrotic ILD

In keeping with resting lung function data indicating slightly lower lung volumes (E-Table 1), subjects from the DLCO < 40% group reached similar VT/ICdyn and end-inspiratory lung volume/TLC at significantly lower peak work rates compared to DLCO ≥ 40% (Table 1). Of note, the VT inflection point, indicating critical constraints to further lung-chest-wall displacement33 occurred at similar V̇E in both subject groups (∼45 L/min) (Fig. 1A) (also see Exertional Dyspnea and a Severely Reduced DLCO in fibrotic ILD). Given the higher ventilatory response (Fig. 1A-1D), however, this occurred at significantly lower exercise intensities. In the setting of higher operating lung volumes and a closer proximity to TLC (Fig. 2D-2F),45 the heightened ventilatory requirements in this group was primarily met by faster breathing frequencies rather than larger VT (E-Fig. 2C-2D, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). Tachypnea may have also been influenced by higher chemostimulation when SpO2 decreased to ≤ 88%, that is, values that are more likely to be associated with substantial carotid body stimulation (PaO2 < 60 mm Hg).11 Regardless of the underlying mechanisms, faster breathing frequency at a similar duty cycle (E-Fig. 2G, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com) implies a shorter TI (E-Fig. 2F); consequently, the mean inspiratory flow (VT/TI ratio) was higher in the DLCO < 40% group (E-Fig. 2H, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). As long postulated by Burdon and colleagues,54 shorter TI and higher VT/TI may serve to optimize VT and breathing frequency, likely to minimize the elastic and resistive work of breathing and, potentially, breathlessness in fibrotic ILD.

Heightened Leg Discomfort on Exertion and a Severely Reduced DLCO in fibrotic ILD

There is growing evidence that decrements in DLCO are associated with abnormalities in peripheral (and potentially respiratory) muscle structure and function in fibrotic ILD.22,23 Higher sense of leg discomfort throughout exercise in the DLCO < 40% group (E-Fig. 1G–1H, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com) is likely multifactorial. For instance, these subjects reported more severe dyspnea in daily life (E-Table 1, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com); thus, they were likely less active and deconditioned. Lower O2 delivery secondary to reduced O2 content likely contributed as well as any impairment in intramuscular blood flow distribution.24 Whether the consistent downward shift in O2 pulse closer to exercise cessation (E-Fig. 1F, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com) signals impaired stroke volume (secondary to higher pulmonary vascular pressures)21 and/or the consequences of more severe hypoxemia (reflex increase in heart rate and/or reduced arterial-venous O2 gradient) remain unclear, demanding invasive CPET. We recently showed that reduced convective O2 delivery24 either secondary to hypoxemia and/or lower muscle blood flow is mechanistically linked to heightened neuromuscular (contractile) fatigue25 and perceived sense of fatigability,55 both being predictors of poor exercise tolerance in fibrotic ILD. As shown in Table 1, subjects from the DLCO < 40% group did present with an earlier anaerobic threshold that may have further increased the discharge of overexcited ergo receptors.45 It is rather interesting to note the temporal concomitance between an upward shift in leg discomfort with the VT inflection point (triangles in E-Fig. 1G–1H, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com). Although this may not reflect causality, putative explanations include (1) given the parallel acceleration of dyspnea at this point (Fig. 3), the subjects may have become more aware of any simultaneous uncomfortable sensations; (2) negative hemodynamic consequences of heightened pleural pressure swings and/or blood flow redistribution to the overloaded respiratory muscles45 may have further impaired muscle O2 delivery; and (3) the blunting effect of the respiratory compensation to lactic acidosis on VT with simultaneous increase in breathing frequency.56

Exertional Dyspnea and a Severely Reduced DLCO in fibrotic ILD

A noticeable finding of the present study was the similar peak dyspnea scores reported by subjects and controls: Given ∼45% (vs controls) and ∼20% (vs DLCO ≥ 40%) lower peak work rate in the DLCO < 40% group, dyspnea increased at a faster rate in the latter group (Table 1, Fig. 3A). We, therefore, confirmed a recurrent finding across our studies involving subjects with obstructive (eg, COPD, cystic fibrosis)57 and restrictive (ILD)27 abnormalities: the close relationship between metrics of demand-capacity imbalance and exertional dyspnea. For instance, differences in dyspnea intensity between ILD subjects and controls were markedly lessened (vs VRdyn) or disappeared (vs IRV/TLC) when the symptom was related to metrics of reduced ventilatory and volume reserves, respectively (Fig. 3C-3D). This is consistent with the notion that increased dyspnea in fibrotic ILD largely reflects the heightened awareness of an increased neural respiratory drive52 triggered by alterations in pulmonary gas exchange efficiency (reducing VRdyn) and respiratory mechanics (decreasing IRV/TLC).13 In keeping with our recent results in COPD,36 Figure 1D illustrates the advantages of submaximal VRdyn to expose the seeds of exertional dyspnea since peak VR, the traditional approach to suggest ventilatory limitation, did not differ between subjects and controls. Of note, participants showing DLCO < 40% were more likely to report dyspnea scores within the very severe range (Table 1), a cutoff that consistently pointed out a higher V̇E/V̇CO2, greater inspiratory constraints, and poorer exercise tolerance in COPD.34 The differences in dyspnea trajectory as the ventilatory and volume reserves diminished with exercise progression were also informative. Thus, dyspnea rose linearly as VRdyn decreased without a discernible break point (Fig. 3C); conversely, it quickly accelerated when the volume reserve to further inspiration reached excessively low values (∼15% from TLC at ∼45 L/min V̇E in both subject groups) (Fig. 3D).33 It follows that to avoid the emergence of intolerable dyspnea, patients with fibrotic ILD might benefit from training modalities that are not associated with sustained increases in V̇E above a certain critical level.

Study Weaknesses and Strengths

Our results are largely descriptive, and we carefully avoided suggesting any cause-effect relationship between DLCO < 40% and the associated resting and exercise outcomes. Thus, we emphasized that DLCO < 40% signals (ie, predicts, marks) multiple abnormal responses to exertion that are beyond its most logical correlate: hypoxemia. In this context, they provide strong support for the contentions by Enright9 about the relevance of DLCO in helping clinical decision making in pulmonology. Although we did not measure mouth pressure during the DLCO maneuvers, Kaminsky and Jarzembosky58 reported that variations were not associated with the measured DLCO value in a real-life study that included subjects with ILD. We opted for the percentage predicted criterion to define a severely impaired DLCO since Z score–based classifications have not yet been extensively validated.59 The suggested cutoff (40%) has been proposed by an European Respiratory Society task force and widely used over almost 2 decades.8 To improve the external validity of our results, we did not exclude subjects with a previous smoking history. Importantly, however, emphysema extension was defined as only mild29 by trained radiologists in all subjects. In particular, no subject presented with combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema or resting pulmonary hypertension,21 decreasing sample heterogeneity. Both fibrotic ILD groups showed a numerically higher BMI than controls (though typically in the mild obesity range) (E-Table 1, see related supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com), and increased mass displacement is known to worsen dyspnea; thus, additional studies are required to investigate whether dyspnea further increases when moderate-to-severe obesity and DLCO < 40% coexist. Although the relative contribution of lung mechanical versus gas exchange mechanisms of breathlessness vary as fibrotic ILD etiologies progress,10 this seems a less relevant shortcoming in a transversal study. Cycling is associated with less hypoxemia compared to walking;11 consequently, we may have underestimated the severity of O2 desaturation in daily life. Nevertheless, less exercise-induced hypoxemia (Table 1) gave us the opportunity to investigate the integrated physiological responses to exercise and their sensory consequences without the overruling influence of a markedly increased hypoxic drive.11 Also from a positive perspective, only a minority of our subjects were using long-term O2 therapy (n = 11), thereby reducing the potential confounding effects of acute O2 supplementation withdrawal (for CPET performance) on exertional dyspnea. We restrained our analysis to dyspnea intensity, and it remains unknown whether dyspnea descriptors14,60 would change in those with a severely reduced DLCO. Since severe hypoxemia may compromise cerebral oxygenation on exertion in fibrotic ILD,26 it remains unclear whether central fatigue61 may contribute to poorer exercise tolerance in the DLCO < 40% group.

Conclusions

A severely reduced single-breath DLCO (< 40%) marked poor exercise tolerance in subjects with fibrotic ILD due to multiple interconnected mechanisms (disturbed hemodynamics, a precocious shift to skeletal muscle anaerobic metabolism, excess exertional ventilation secondary to heightened afferent stimuli including hypoxemia, and critically high inspiratory constraints) that ultimately lead to intolerable respiratory (dyspnea) and peripheral (leg discomfort) symptoms. Given the close association between impaired physical performance and symptom burden with morbidity and poor health-related quality of life in fibrotic ILD,3-5 this subset of patients might derive particular benefit from interventions to lessen the ventilatory requirements (walking aids, exertional O2 supplementation,6 treatment of cardiovascular comorbidities known to increase afferent stimuli,34 exercise reconditioning4); volume constraints (anti-fibrotic therapy as indicated,62 weight loss in obesity); and, in selected patients, dyspnea perception (low dose opiates28).

Footnotes

The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material related to this paper is available at http://www.rcjournal.com.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Cottin V, Hirani NA, Hotchkin DL, Nambiar AM, Ogura T, Otaola M, et al. Presentation, diagnosis, and clinical course of the spectrum of progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases. Eur Respir Rev 2018;27(150):180076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cottin V, Wollin L, Fischer A, Quaresma M, Stowasser S, Harari S. Fibrosing interstitial lung diseases: knowns and unknowns. Eur Respir Rev 2019;28(151):180100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Swigris JJ, Brown KK, Abdulqawi R, Buch K, Dilling DF, Koschel D, et al. Patients’ perceptions and patient-reported outcomes in progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases. Eur Respir Rev 2018;27(150):180075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Holland AE. Exercise limitation in interstitial lung disease - mechanisms, significance, and therapeutic options. Chron Respir Dis 2010;7(2):101-111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chang JA, Curtis JR, Patrick DL, Raghu G. Assessment of health-related quality of life in patients with interstitial lung disease. Chest 1999;116(5):1175-1182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Molgat-Seon Y, Schaeffer MR, Ryerson CJ, Guenette JA. Exercise pathophysiology in interstitial lung disease. Clin Chest Med 2019;40(2):405-420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Molgat-Seon Y, Schaeffer MR, Ryerson CJ, Guenette JA. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with interstitial lung disease. Front Physiol 2020;11:832. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Brusasco V, Crapo RO, Burgos F, Casaburi R, et al. Interpretative strategies for lung function tests. Eur Respir J 2005;26(5):948-968. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Enright Md P. Office-based DLCO tests help pulmonologists to make important clinical decisions. Respir Investig 2016;54(5):305-311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Keogh BA, Crystal RG. Clinical significance of pulmonary function tests. Pulmonary function testing in interstitial pulmonary disease. What does it tell us? Chest 1980;78(6):856-865. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Du Plessis JP, Fernandes S, Jamal R, Camp P, Johannson K, Schaeffer M, et al. Exertional hypoxemia is more severe in fibrotic interstitial lung disease than in COPD. Respirology 2018;23(4):392-398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Marciniuk DD, Watts RE, Gallagher CG. Dead-space loading and exercise limitation in patients with interstitial lung disease. Chest 1994;105(1):183-189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Schaeffer MR, Ryerson CJ, Ramsook AH, Molgat-Seon Y, Wilkie SS, Dhillon SS, et al. Neurophysiological mechanisms of exertional dyspnoea in fibrotic interstitial lung disease. Eur Respir J 2018;51(1):1701726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Schaeffer MR, Guenette JA, Ramsook AH, Molgat-Seon Y, Mitchell RA, Wilkie SS, et al. Qualitative dimensions of exertional dyspnea in fibrotic interstitial lung disease. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2019;266:1-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kaminsky DA, Whitman T, Callas PW. DLCO versus DLCO/VA as predictors of pulmonary gas exchange. Respir Med 2007;101(5):989-994. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Neder JA, Berton DC, Muller PT, O’Donnell DE. Incorporating lung diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide in clinical decision making in chest medicine. Clin Chest Med 2019;40(2):285-305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Krauss E, van der Beck D, Schmalz I, Wilhelm J, Tello S, Dartsch RC, et al. Evaluation of regional pulmonary ventilation in spontaneously breathing patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) employing electrical impedance tomography (EIT): a pilot study from the European IPF Registry (eurIPFreg). J Clin Med 2021;10(2):192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Agustí AG, Roca J, Gea J, Wagner PD, Xaubet A, Rodriguez-Roisin R. Mechanisms of gas-exchange impairment in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991;143(2):219-225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hansen JE, Wasserman K. Pathophysiology of activity limitation in patients with interstitial lung disease. Chest 1996;109(6):1566-1576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Panagiotou M, Church AC, Johnson MK, Peacock AJ. Pulmonary vascular and cardiac impairment in interstitial lung disease. Eur Respir Rev 2017;26(143):160053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Degani-Costa LH, Levarge B, Digumarthy SR, Eisman AS, Harris RS, Lewis GD. Pulmonary vascular response patterns during exercise in interstitial lung disease. Eur Respir J 2015;46(3):738-749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Panagiotou M, Polychronopoulos V, Strange C. Respiratory and lower-limb muscle function in interstitial lung disease. Chron Respir Dis 2016;13(2):162-172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Molgat-Seon Y, Guler SA, Peters CM, Vasilescu DM, Puyat JH, Coxson HO, et al. Pectoralis muscle area and its association with indices of disease severity in interstitial lung disease. Respir Med 2021;186:106539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Marillier M, Bernard A-C, Verges S, Moran-Mendoza O, Neder JA. Quantifying leg muscle deoxygenation during incremental cycling in hypoxemic patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2023;43(3):192-200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Marillier M, Bernard A-C, Verges S, Moran-Mendoza O, O’Donnell DE, Neder JA. Oxygen supplementation during exercise improves leg muscle fatigue in chronic fibrotic interstitial lung disease. Thorax 2021;76(7):672-680. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Marillier M, Bernard A-C, Verges S, Moran-Mendoza O, O’Donnell DE, Neder JA. Influence of exertional hypoxemia on cerebral oxygenation in fibrotic interstitial lung disease. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2021;285:103601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Faisal A, Alghamdi BJ, Ciavaglia CE, Elbehairy AF, Webb KA, Ora J, et al. Common mechanisms of dyspnea in chronic interstitial and obstructive lung disorders. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016;193(3):299-309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Milne KM, Ibrahim-Masthan M, Scheeren RE, James MD, Phillips DB, Moran-Mendoza O, et al. Inspiratory neural drive and dyspnea in interstitial lung disease: effect of inhaled fentanyl. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2020;282:103511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wille MMW, Thomsen LH, Petersen J, de Bruijne M, Dirksen A, Pedersen JH, et al. Visual assessment of early emphysema and interstitial abnormalities on CT is useful in lung cancer risk analysis. Eur Radiol 2016;26(2):487-494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hall GL, Filipow N, Ruppel G, Okitika T, Thompson B, Kirkby J, et al. Official ERS technical standard: global lung function initiative reference values for static lung volumes in individuals of European ancestry. Eur Respir J 2021;57(3):2000289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Quanjer PH, Stanojevic S, Cole TJ, Baur X, Hall GL, Culver BH, et al. ; ERS Global Lung Function Initiative. Multi-ethnic reference values for spirometry for the 3–95-yr age range: the global lung function 2012 equations. Eur Respir J 2012;40(6):1324-1343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Stanojevic S, Graham BL, Cooper BG, et al. ; Global Lung Function Initiative TLCO working group; Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) TLCO. Official ERS technical standards: Global Lung Function Initiative reference values for the carbon monoxide transfer factor for Caucasians. Eur Respir J 2020;56(4):1750010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Guenette JA, Chin RC, Cory JM, Webb KA, O’Donnell DE. Inspiratory capacity during exercise: measurement, analysis, and interpretation. Pulm Med 2013;2013:956081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Neder JA, Phillips DB, O’Donnell DE, Dempsey JA. Excess ventilation and exertional dyspnoea in heart failure and pulmonary hypertension. Eur Respir J 2022;60(5):2200144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Neder JA, Berton DC, Arbex FF, Alencar MC, Rocha A, Sperandio PA, et al. Physiological and clinical relevance of exercise ventilatory efficiency in COPD. Eur Respir J 2017;49(3):1602036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Neder JA, Berton DC, Plachi F, Phillips D, Smyth R, James M. Submaximal breathing reserve during incremental cycle ergometry: reference values and clinical validation. European Respiratory Journal 2022;60(Suppl 66). [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Neder JA, Berton DC, Nery LE, Tan WC, Bourbeau J, O’Donnell DE. A frame of reference for assessing the intensity of exertional dyspnea during incremental cycle ergometry. Eur Respir J 2020:2000191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ries AL. Minimally clinically important difference for the UCSD Shortness of Breath Questionnaire, Borg scale, and visual analog scale. COPD 2005;2(1):105-110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Neder JA, Smyth RM, Phillips DB, James MD, Vincent SG, Milne KM, et al. Why patients with lung fibrosis showing only mild restriction at rest may develop limiting dyspnoea on exertion? European Respiratory Journal 2022;60(Suppl 66). [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hughes JMB. The single-breath transfer factor (Tl,co) and the transfer coefficient (Kco): a window onto the pulmonary microcirculation. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 2003;23(2):63-71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Davis C, Sheikh K, Pike D, Svenningsen S, McCormack DG, O’Donnell D, et al. ; Canadian Respiratory Research Network. Ventilation heterogeneity in never smokers and COPD: comparison of pulmonary functional magnetic resonance imaging with the poorly communicating fraction derived from plethysmography. Acad Radiol 2016;23(4):398-405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Macklem PT. The physiology of small airways. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;157(5 Pt 2):S181-183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ikezoe K, Hackett T-L, Peterson S, Prins D, Hague CJ, Murphy D, et al. Small airway reduction and fibrosis is an early pathologic feature of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2021;204(9):1048-1059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Neder JA. Residual exertional dyspnea in cardiopulmonary disease. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2020;17(12):1516-1525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Dempsey JA, Neder JA, Phillips DB, O’Donnell DE. The physiology and pathophysiology of exercise hyperpnea. Handb Clin Neurol 2022;188:201-232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Robertson HT. Dead space: the physiology of wasted ventilation. Eur Respir J 2015;45(6):1704-1716. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Whipp BJ. Control of the exercise hyperpnea: the unanswered question. Adv Exp Med Biol 2008;605:16-21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Whipp BJ. The hyperpnea of dynamic muscular exercise. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1977;5:295-311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Petersson J, Glenny RW. Gas exchange and ventilation-perfusion relationships in the lung. Eur Respir J 2014;44(4):1023-1041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Neder JA, Kirby M, Santyr G, Pourafkari M, Smyth R, Phillips DB, et al. V̇/Q̇ mismatch: a novel target for COPD treatment. Chest 2022;162(5):S0012-3692(22)00577–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Van Meerhaeghe A, Scano G, Sergysels R, Bran M, De Coster A. Respiratory drive and ventilatory pattern during exercise in interstitial lung disease. Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir 1981;17(1):15-26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Mendonca CT, Schaeffer MR, Riley P, Jensen D. Physiological mechanisms of dyspnea during exercise with external thoracic restriction: role of increased neural respiratory drive. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2014;116(5):570-581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Dempsey JA. Respiratory determinants of exercise limitation: focus on phrenic afferents and the lung vasculature. Clin Chest Med 2019;40(2):331-342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Burdon JG, Killian KJ, Jones NL. Pattern of breathing during exercise in patients with interstitial lung disease. Thorax 1983;38(10):778-784. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Marillier M, Gruet M, Bernard A-C, Verges S, Moran-Mendoza O, Neder JA. The relationship between perceived and performance fatigability in severe fibrotic interstitial lung disease: a prospective, cross-sectional study. ERJ Open Research, in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Neder JA, Stein R. A simplified strategy for the estimation of the exercise ventilatory thresholds. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006;38(5):1007-1013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Neder JA, Berton DC, Marillier M, Bernard A-C, O’Donnell DE; Canadian Respiratory Research Network. Inspiratory constraints and ventilatory inefficiency are superior to breathing reserve in the assessment of exertional dyspnea in COPD. COPD 2019;16(2):174-181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kaminsky DA, Jarzembowski SC. Influence of mouth pressure on measurement of diffusing capacity in the clinical pulmonary function laboratory. Respir Care 2019;64(5):576-581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Stanojevic S, Kaminsky DA, Miller MR, Thompson B, Aliverti A, Barjaktarevic I, et al. ERS/ATS technical standard on interpretive strategies for routine lung function tests. Eur Respir J 2022;60(1):2101499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.O’Donnell DE, Chau LK, Webb KA. Qualitative aspects of exertional dyspnea in patients with interstitial lung disease. J Appl Physiol (1985) 1998;84(6):2000-2009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Marillier M, Gruet M, Bernard A-C, Verges S, Neder JA. The exercising brain: an overlooked factor limiting the tolerance to physical exertion in major cardiorespiratory diseases? Front Hum Neurosci 2021;15:789053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.McCarthy C, Keane MP. Contemporary concise review 2021: interstitial lung disease. Respirology 2022;27(7):539-548. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Respiratory Care are provided here courtesy of Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

RESOURCES