RESUMEN
Objective: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is widely used as a biomarker of allergic airway inflammation. At present, both stationary chemiluminescence and portable electrochemical analyzers produced by different manufacturers are available. However, it remains debatable whether those analyzers are comparable to each other. We compare FeNO levels obtained by different analyzers.Methods: For the first study, 153 subjects were enrolled to compare differences in FeNO levels measured using three analyzers (NA623NP®, NObreath®, and NIOX MINO®) which were produced by different manufacturers. For the second study, 30 subjects were recruited to compare FeNO levels obtained by the two analyzers (NIOX MINO® and NIOX VERO®) produced by the same manufacturer. FeNO was measured twice using each analyzer in random order.Results: FeNO levels obtained using the NIOX MINO® and NObreath® were more variable than those measured using the NA623NP®. There were strong positive correlations in FeNO levels measured by the NA623NP®, NIOX MINO®, and NObreath® (p < 0.001). The NA623NP® and NIOX MINO® provided the highest and lowest FeNO levels, respectively; whereas, those obtained by NObreath® were intermediate. No significant differences were observed in FeNO levels obtained using the NIOX MINO® and NIOX VERO®.Conclusions: FeNO levels measured by the NIOX MINO® and NIOX VERO®, both of which were produced by the same manufacturer, have comparability. However, significant differences in FeNO levels exist when measured by analyzers manufactured by different manufacturers. This should be taken into account for FeNO measurement.
Asunto(s)
Asma/diagnóstico , Óxido Nítrico/análisis , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Pruebas Respiratorias/instrumentación , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Femenino , Voluntarios Sanos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Reproducibilidad de los ResultadosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) is a useful marker of asthma control. The FENO measurement with two hand-helded analyzers (NObreath® and NIOX Vero®) may be more affordable, no studies have examined the differences in FENO values measured with those methods in adult. METHODS: The study population comprised 44 subjects at our outpatient clinic. FeNO values (FENOb and FENOv) were measured by two methods (NObreath® and NIOX Vero®). RESULTS: FENOb values were significantly correlated with FENOv (r = 0.911, p < 0.001). However, FENOv values were high compared with FENOb (FENOv = 1.40 × FENOb). CONCLUSION: Differences exist in the values of FENO measured by two hand-helded analyzers: conversion equations are needed to compare the FENO values between these methods.