Introduction: A monthly biologic or mechanic quality control is implemented as recommended at the pulmonary function and exercise testing laboratory of MUMC+ Maastricht, (Netherlands)

Aim: To compare two different methods for quality control for CPET by using a biological control and a Metabolic Simulator (Relitech).

Method: Biologic control: a healthy control performed a cycling test on two CPET devices (Vyntus CPX, Vyaire). VO2, VCO2 were measured during three minutes at rest and six minutes at 100 Watt after reaching steady state. Calibration was performed in advance. Mechanical control: the metabolic simulator was used to measure VO2, CO2 during one minute after reaching steady state. The respiratory rate (RR) was set at 20/min and 40/min. Upper and lower limits were used as recommended. The mechanic quality control was performed under ATP (ambient temperature and pressure) condition and after calibration and verification of CPET.

Outcome: Mean variance of VO2, VCO2 of biological control at rest, at 100W was compared with mean variance of VO2 and VCO2 of the metabolic simulator at RR/20 and at RR 40/min.

Results: biological control resulted in a mean variance of VO2 and VCO2 of 9.09 % (SD ± 4.90), 10.35% (SD ± 22.90) at rest and 3.02% (SD ± 43.25), 2.57 %(SD ± 36.15) at 100 Watt. Mean variance of the metabolic simulator was significant lower (p< 0.05). VO2 and VCO2 was 1.20% (±50 ml), 1.61% (± 50 ml) at RR 20/min and 1.06 % (± 85 ml), 1.26% (± 85 ml) at RR 40/min.

Conclusion: a relevant difference in variance of VO2,VCO2 was detected between biological control and the metabolic simulator. The metabolic simulator demonstrated a better reproducibility and variability.