4.6 Article

Exhaled Breath Analysis Using Electronic Nose in Cystic Fibrosis and Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Patients with Chronic Pulmonary Infections

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115584

关键词

-

资金

  1. Danmarks lungeforening
  2. A.P. Moller og Hustru Chastine Mc-Kinney Moller Fond
  3. John and Birthe Meyer Foundation
  4. European Union [8305404]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current diagnostic work-up and monitoring of pulmonary infections may be perceived as invasive, is time consuming and expensive. In this explorative study, we investigated whether or not a non-invasive exhaled breath analysis using an electronic nose would discriminate between cystic fibrosis (CF) and primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) with or without various well characterized chronic pulmonary infections. We recruited 64 patients with CF and 21 with PCD based on known chronic infection status. 21 healthy volunteers served as controls. An electronic nose was employed to analyze exhaled breath samples. Principal component reduction and discriminant analysis were used to construct internally cross-validated receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. Breath profiles of CF and PCD patients differed significantly from healthy controls p=0.001 and p=0.005, respectively. Profiles of CF patients having a chronic P. aeruginosa infection differed significantly from to non-chronically infected CF patients p=0.044. We confirmed the previously established discriminative power of exhaled breath analysis in separation between healthy subjects and patients with CF or PCD. Furthermore, this method significantly discriminates CF patients suffering from a chronic pulmonary P. aeruginosa (PA) infection from CF patients without a chronic pulmonary infection. Further studies are needed for verification and to investigate the role of electronic nose technology in the very early diagnostic workup of pulmonary infections before the establishment of a chronic infection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据