4.5 Article

Assessment of exhaled nitric oxide by a new hand-held device

Journal

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
Volume 104, Issue 9, Pages 1377-1380

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2010.06.005

Keywords

Exhaled nitric oxide; Logan; NIOX MINO; NObreath; Reproducibility

Funding

  1. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
  2. Hungarian Scientific Research Foundation [OTKA 68808]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) has been implicated as a pulmonary biomarker. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of a new hand-held device to a standard chemiluminescence analyzer and to another portable device. Methods: FENO levels measured by NObreath (Bedfont) were compared to those of (1) a chemiluminescence detector (Logan, Logan Research) and (2) the electrochemical portable NIOX MINO (Aerocrine) in 18 healthy volunteers on three consecutive occasions: in the morning, 1 h and 24 h later. Results: Comparing FENO levels obtained by NObreath to those by Logan values were similar and a very close linear relationship was found between the two devices (r = 0.923, p < 0.001). The mean inter-device difference in FENO level was -3.45 ppb and the limits of agreement (Bland-Altman test) were -10.98 and 4.08 ppb. In the second series FENO levels obtained by NObreath were found to be slightly higher compared to those of NIOX MINO, but still showed a close correlation (r = 0.681, p < 0.001). The mean inter-device difference in FENO level was 4.36 ppb and the limits of agreement were -7.38 and 16.1 ppb. Analyzing the repeated FENO measurements, the mean coefficient of variation using NObreath tended to be lower than that of NIOX MINO (16.9 vs. 24.7%, p = 0.059), while it was similar as the value obtained with Logan (11.8 vs. 9.0%, p = 0.342). Conclusions: FENO values measured with NObreath are reproducible and in good agreement with those obtained by NIOX MINO and Logan indicating that NObreath is suitable for use in clinical practice. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available