» Articles » PMID: 29276544

ANALYSIS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN EXPIRED-AIR CARBON MONOXIDE MONITORS

Overview
Journal J Smok Cessat
Date 2017 Dec 26
PMID 29276544
Citations 19
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: The current study examined the level of agreement in expired-air carbon monoxide (CO) values, focusing especially on those confirming abstinence, between the two most commonly used CO monitors, the Vitalograph BreathCO and the Bedfont piCO+ Smokerlyzer.

Methods: Expired-air samples were collected via both monitors from adult dependent smokers (44 M, 34 F) participating in studies using CO values to confirm abstinence durations of: 24 hours, 12 hours, or no abstinence. All met DSM-IV nicotine dependence criteria and had a mean (SD) Fagerström Test of Cigarette Dependence score of 5.1 (1.8). Paired data collected across multiple visits were analyzed by regression-based Bland-Altman method of Limits of Agreement.

Findings: Analysis indicated a lack of agreement in CO measurement between monitors. Overall, the Bedfont monitor gave mean (±SEM) readings 3.83 (±.23) ppm higher than the Vitalograph monitor. Mean differences between monitors were larger for those ad lib smoking (5.65±.38 ppm) than those abstaining 12-24 hours (1.71±.13 ppm). Yet, there also was not consistent agreement in classification of 24 hour abstinence between monitors.

Conclusions: Systematic differences in CO readings demonstrate these two very common monitors may not result in interchangeable values, and reported outcomes in smoking research based on CO values may depend on the monitor used.

Citing Articles

Remote Carbon Monoxide Capture via REDCap: Evaluation of an Integrated Mobile Application.

Dahne J, Wahlquist A, McClure E, Natale N, Carpenter M, Tomko R Nicotine Tob Res. 2023; 26(6):696-703.

PMID: 37983048 PMC: 11109493. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntad230.


Evaluating the impact of varying expired carbon monoxide thresholds on smoking relapse identification: insights from the E3 trial on e-cigarette efficacy for smoking cessation.

Prell C, Hebert-Losier A, Filion K, Reynier P, Eisenberg M BMJ Open. 2023; 13(10):e071099.

PMID: 37832989 PMC: 10583027. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071099.


Comparison of the Bluetooth iCOquit, piCO, and Vitalograph for the assessment of breath carbon monoxide among adults initiating smoking cessation and standardized canisters.

Tonkin S, Kezbers K, Noble B, Cropsey K, Kendzor D, Oliver J Drug Alcohol Depend. 2023; 250:110902.

PMID: 37506541 PMC: 10529684. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.110902.


Influence of Milk on Exhaled Carbon Monoxide (CO) Measurement by Portable CO Monitors.

Miyoshi K, Kurioka N, Kawazoe S, Miyawaki T J Smok Cessat. 2022; 2022:6714601.

PMID: 36568903 PMC: 9757936. DOI: 10.1155/2022/6714601.


The effects of reduced nicotine content cigarettes on biomarkers of nicotine and toxicant exposure, smoking behavior and psychiatric symptoms in smokers with mood or anxiety disorders: A double-blind randomized trial.

Foulds J, Veldheer S, Pachas G, Hrabovsky S, Hameed A, Allen S PLoS One. 2022; 17(11):e0275522.

PMID: 36322562 PMC: 9629593. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275522.


References
1.
Perkins K, Karelitz J, Jao N . Optimal carbon monoxide criteria to confirm 24-hr smoking abstinence. Nicotine Tob Res. 2012; 15(5):978-82. PMC: 3733388. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/nts205. View

2.
Bland J, Altman D . Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 22(1):85-93. DOI: 10.1002/uog.122. View

3.
. Biochemical verification of tobacco use and cessation. Nicotine Tob Res. 2002; 4(2):149-59. DOI: 10.1080/14622200210123581. View

4.
Hanneman S . Design, analysis, and interpretation of method-comparison studies. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2008; 19(2):223-34. PMC: 2944826. DOI: 10.1097/01.AACN.0000318125.41512.a3. View

5.
Raiff B, Faix C, Turturici M, Dallery J . Breath carbon monoxide output is affected by speed of emptying the lungs: implications for laboratory and smoking cessation research. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010; 12(8):834-8. PMC: 2910872. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntq090. View