4.3 Article

Real-time exhaled breath analysis in patients with cystic fibrosis and controls

期刊

JOURNAL OF BREATH RESEARCH
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1752-7163/aab7fd

关键词

SESI-HRMS; mass spectrometry; cystic fibrosis; real-time analysis

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [CR23I2_149617, 32003B_143365/1]
  2. University of Zurich Clinical Research Priority Program Sleep and Health
  3. Marie Curie European Reintegration Grant within the 7th European Community Framework Programme [276860]
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [32003B_143365, CR23I2_149617] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We aimed at defining profiles of volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath from patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) using a novel real-time mass spectrometry technique. In this prospective matched case-control study, 30 patients with CF, and 30 healthy control subjects were matched one-to-one according to age, gender, and smoking state. We performed exhaled breath analysis by untargeted secondary electrospray ionization-high resolution mass spectrometry (SESI-HRMS). Patients with CF (mean age 26.0 +/- 13.0 years) and controls (mean age 27.9 +/- 14.0 years) were analyzed using SESI-HRMS. 49 exhaled breath features were found to be altered (p-value < 0.05/q-value < 0.1) in CF patients, in comparison to healthy controls. The two most discriminating features showed a prediction AUROC of 77.1% (95% CI 62.2%-87.8%) with a specificity of 80.0% and a sensitivity of 63.3%. Levels of oxidative stress metabolites such as fatty acids were found to differ significantly between patients with CF and healthy controls. Furthermore, in patients with CF, 11 features correlated with the mucus concentration of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia bacteria. Exhaled breath analysis with SESI-HRMS allows the identification of CF specific compounds in real-time and may trace bacterial strains in affected patients with CF.

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

4.3
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