Exhaled nitric oxide collected with two different mouthpieces: a study in asthmatic patients

Techniques for collecting exhaled nitric oxide (ENO) recommend the use of antibacterial filters of 0.3 µm. The aim of the present study was to compare the measurements of ENO obtained with two different filtering devices. Air samples from 17 asthmatic and 17 non-asthmatic subjects were collected by a recommended off-line technique using two different mouthpieces: 1) the Sievers disposable tool (A) under a breathing pressure of 18 cmH2O, and 2) a mouthpiece containing a HEPA filter (B) under a breathing pressure of 12 cmH2O. The nitric oxide samples were collected into an impermeable reservoir bag. Values for ENO were compared using two-way repeated measures ANOVA followed by the Tukey test. Agreement was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. ENO values obtained with mouthpieces A and B were comparable for asthmatic (mean ± SEM, 42.9 ± 6.9 vs 43.3 ± 6.6 ppb) and non-asthmatic (13.3 ± 1.3 vs 13.7 ± 1.1 ppb) subjects. There was a significant difference in ENO between asthmatics and non-asthmatics using either mouthpiece A (P<0.001) or B (P<0.001). There was a positive correlation between mouthpiece A and mouthpiece B for both groups. The Bland-Altman limits of agreement were considered to be acceptable. Mouthpiece B was less expensive than A, and these data show that it can be used without compromising the result. Our data confirm reports of higher ENO values in the presence of airway inflammation.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Leme,A.S., Kasahara,D.I., Nunes,M.P.T., Martins,M.A., Vieira,J.E.
Format: Digital revista
Language:English
Published: Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica 2002
Online Access:http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2002001000004
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id oai:scielo:S0100-879X2002001000004
record_format ojs
spelling oai:scielo:S0100-879X20020010000042002-10-13Exhaled nitric oxide collected with two different mouthpieces: a study in asthmatic patientsLeme,A.S.Kasahara,D.I.Nunes,M.P.T.Martins,M.A.Vieira,J.E. Exhaled nitric oxide Asthma Nitric oxide collecting apparatus Filter Techniques for collecting exhaled nitric oxide (ENO) recommend the use of antibacterial filters of 0.3 µm. The aim of the present study was to compare the measurements of ENO obtained with two different filtering devices. Air samples from 17 asthmatic and 17 non-asthmatic subjects were collected by a recommended off-line technique using two different mouthpieces: 1) the Sievers disposable tool (A) under a breathing pressure of 18 cmH2O, and 2) a mouthpiece containing a HEPA filter (B) under a breathing pressure of 12 cmH2O. The nitric oxide samples were collected into an impermeable reservoir bag. Values for ENO were compared using two-way repeated measures ANOVA followed by the Tukey test. Agreement was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. ENO values obtained with mouthpieces A and B were comparable for asthmatic (mean ± SEM, 42.9 ± 6.9 vs 43.3 ± 6.6 ppb) and non-asthmatic (13.3 ± 1.3 vs 13.7 ± 1.1 ppb) subjects. There was a significant difference in ENO between asthmatics and non-asthmatics using either mouthpiece A (P<0.001) or B (P<0.001). There was a positive correlation between mouthpiece A and mouthpiece B for both groups. The Bland-Altman limits of agreement were considered to be acceptable. Mouthpiece B was less expensive than A, and these data show that it can be used without compromising the result. Our data confirm reports of higher ENO values in the presence of airway inflammation.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAssociação Brasileira de Divulgação CientíficaBrazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research v.35 n.10 20022002-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2002001000004en10.1590/S0100-879X2002001000004
institution SCIELO
collection OJS
country Brasil
countrycode BR
component Revista
access En linea
databasecode rev-scielo-br
tag revista
region America del Sur
libraryname SciELO
language English
format Digital
author Leme,A.S.
Kasahara,D.I.
Nunes,M.P.T.
Martins,M.A.
Vieira,J.E.
spellingShingle Leme,A.S.
Kasahara,D.I.
Nunes,M.P.T.
Martins,M.A.
Vieira,J.E.
Exhaled nitric oxide collected with two different mouthpieces: a study in asthmatic patients
author_facet Leme,A.S.
Kasahara,D.I.
Nunes,M.P.T.
Martins,M.A.
Vieira,J.E.
author_sort Leme,A.S.
title Exhaled nitric oxide collected with two different mouthpieces: a study in asthmatic patients
title_short Exhaled nitric oxide collected with two different mouthpieces: a study in asthmatic patients
title_full Exhaled nitric oxide collected with two different mouthpieces: a study in asthmatic patients
title_fullStr Exhaled nitric oxide collected with two different mouthpieces: a study in asthmatic patients
title_full_unstemmed Exhaled nitric oxide collected with two different mouthpieces: a study in asthmatic patients
title_sort exhaled nitric oxide collected with two different mouthpieces: a study in asthmatic patients
description Techniques for collecting exhaled nitric oxide (ENO) recommend the use of antibacterial filters of 0.3 µm. The aim of the present study was to compare the measurements of ENO obtained with two different filtering devices. Air samples from 17 asthmatic and 17 non-asthmatic subjects were collected by a recommended off-line technique using two different mouthpieces: 1) the Sievers disposable tool (A) under a breathing pressure of 18 cmH2O, and 2) a mouthpiece containing a HEPA filter (B) under a breathing pressure of 12 cmH2O. The nitric oxide samples were collected into an impermeable reservoir bag. Values for ENO were compared using two-way repeated measures ANOVA followed by the Tukey test. Agreement was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. ENO values obtained with mouthpieces A and B were comparable for asthmatic (mean ± SEM, 42.9 ± 6.9 vs 43.3 ± 6.6 ppb) and non-asthmatic (13.3 ± 1.3 vs 13.7 ± 1.1 ppb) subjects. There was a significant difference in ENO between asthmatics and non-asthmatics using either mouthpiece A (P<0.001) or B (P<0.001). There was a positive correlation between mouthpiece A and mouthpiece B for both groups. The Bland-Altman limits of agreement were considered to be acceptable. Mouthpiece B was less expensive than A, and these data show that it can be used without compromising the result. Our data confirm reports of higher ENO values in the presence of airway inflammation.
publisher Associação Brasileira de Divulgação Científica
publishDate 2002
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-879X2002001000004
work_keys_str_mv AT lemeas exhalednitricoxidecollectedwithtwodifferentmouthpiecesastudyinasthmaticpatients
AT kasaharadi exhalednitricoxidecollectedwithtwodifferentmouthpiecesastudyinasthmaticpatients
AT nunesmpt exhalednitricoxidecollectedwithtwodifferentmouthpiecesastudyinasthmaticpatients
AT martinsma exhalednitricoxidecollectedwithtwodifferentmouthpiecesastudyinasthmaticpatients
AT vieiraje exhalednitricoxidecollectedwithtwodifferentmouthpiecesastudyinasthmaticpatients
_version_ 1756391030969597952