Abstract
Background Indices of ventilation heterogeneity (VH) from multiple breath washout (MBW) have been shown to correlate well with VH indices derived from hyperpolarised gas ventilation MRI. Here we report the prediction of ventilation distributions from MBW data using a mathematical model, and the comparison of these predictions with imaging data.
Methods We developed computer simulations of the ventilation distribution in the lungs to model MBW measurement with 3 parameters: σV, determining the extent of VH; V0, the lung volume; and VD, the dead-space volume. These were inferred for each individual from supine MBW data recorded from 25 patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) using approximate Bayesian computation. The fitted models were used to predict the distribution of gas imaged by 3He ventilation MRI measurements collected from the same visit.
Results The MRI indices measured (I1/3, the fraction of pixels below one-third of the mean intensity and ICV, the coefficient of variation of pixel intensity) correlated strongly with those predicted by the MBW model fits (r = 0.93, 0.88 respectively). There was also good agreement between predicted and measured MRI indices (mean bias ± limits of agreement: I1/3 : − 0.003 ± 0.118 and ICV: − 0.004 ± 0.298). Fitted model parameters were robust to truncation of MBW data.
Conclusion We have shown that the ventilation distribution in the lung can be inferred from an MBW signal, and verified this using ventilation MRI. The Bayesian method employed extracts this information with fewer breath cycles than required for LCI, reducing acquisition time required, and gives uncertainty bounds, which are important for clinical decision making.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This report is independent research supported by the National Institute for Health Research and Health Education England and also the Medical Research Council. This work was supported by the NIHR grants; ICA-CDRF-2015-01-027 and NIHR-RP-R3-12-027 and MRC grant MR/M008894/1. CAW was supported by MRC grant MR/R024944/1. AH was supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and by NIHR grant NIHRCS12-013. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, Health Education England or the Department of Health.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This is a predictive model validation study, no new data was collected for this study. The study upon which this work was based was approved by the Yorkshire and Humber - Leeds West Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 16/YH/0339). Parents/guardians of children and all adult patients provided written informed consent. All data was anonymised before use in this study.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Following multiple rounds of referee comments the structure of the article has been changed. In addition, points have been added to the introduction and discussion. However the methods and results remain substantively unchanged.
Data Availability
Supplementary figures and tables are linked, as well as source code used to generate the results. Patient data (imaging and multiple-breath washout data) is not available as per the data sharing protocol of the original study upon which this work was based.