3.8 Article

Delayed Analysis of Hydrogen-Methane Check fur updates Breath Samples

Journal

Publisher

KOREAN SOC PEDIATRIC GASTROENTEROLOGY & NUTRITION
DOI: 10.5223/pghn.2022.25.1.13

Keywords

Breath tests; Hydrogen; Methane; Lactose intolerance; Child

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the effect of delayed analysis of breath samples on hydrogen and methane concentrations. The results showed that expired hydrogen levels remain stable in plastic syringes if preserved for several days, but the delayed analysis of methane appeared to be less reliable.
Purpose: Hydrogen-methane breath tests are used to diagnose carbohydrate malabsorption and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. The COVID-19 pandemic has driven the modification of procedures as breath tests are potentially aerosol-generating procedures. We assessed the effect of delayed analysis of breath samples, facilitating the at-home performance of breath testing. Methods: Children provided two breath samples at every step of the lactose breath test. The samples were brought back to the clinic, and one set of samples was analyzed immediately. The second set was stored at room temperature and analyzed 1-4 days later. Results: Out of the 73 double lactose breath tests performed at home, 33 (45.8%) were positive. The second samples were analyzed 20 to 117 hours after the first samples (41.7 +/- 24.3 hours). There was no significant difference in the hydrogen concentration between the first and second sets (Z=0.49, p=0.62). This was not the case for methane, which had a significantly higher concentration in the second breath samples (Z=7.6). Conclusion: Expired hydrogen levels remain stable in plastic syringes if preserved at room temperature for several days. On the other hand, the delayed analysis of methane appeared to be less reliable. Further research is needed to examine the impact of delayed analysis on methane and hydrogen concentrations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available