Silkoff P E, Chatkin J, Qian W, Chakravorty S, Gutierrez C, Furlott H, McClean P, Rai S, Zamel N, Haight J
Division of Respiratory Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada.
Am J Rhinol. 1999 May-Jun;13(3):169-78. doi: 10.2500/105065899781389803.
Nasal nitric oxide measurement may be a surrogate marker of upper airway inflammation. There is, however, no standardized measurement technique; and this led us to examine measurement techniques for acceptability and reproducibility. In five subjects we examined the flow dependence of nasal NO. In 13 healthy volunteers, nasal NO was measured on-line by five methods: 1) Tidal nasal and oral breathing: NO sampling during exclusive nasal followed by exclusive oral tidal breathing; 2) Fixed flow exhalation: NO sampling during exclusive nasal followed by exclusive oral exhalation at 100 mL/second from total lung capacity; 3) Nasal-oral aspiration: air aspirated from the mouth via both nares at 100 mL/second with glottis closure; 4) Aspiration from one nares: air aspirated from one nares at 3.3 mL/second using nitric oxide analyzer sample line with velum closure; 5) Nasal Insufflation: NO sampled at one nares as air insufflated into the other nares at a flow of 100 mL/second with velum closure. Acceptability of all methods was assessed by subjects and technicians. Nasal NO concentration showed a significant inverse correlation with transnasal flow rate. All methods showed excellent reproducibility as assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient except tidal breathing, which showed highly variable breath-to-breath NO levels, although mean breath values were reproducible. Mean nasal NO concentrations with methods 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 32.1, 50.2, 62.8, 1381, and 60.0 ppb, respectively. Velum closure was not always achieved in methods 4 and 5, whereas methods 1 and 2 required separate nasal and oral procedures. Method 5 had reduced acceptability. NO concentrations were similar with methods that used the same airflow (2, 3, and 5). Nasal NO can be sampled in different ways with excellent reproducibility. In view of the flow dependence of nasal NO, it is vital to use a constant flow rate, and lower airway NO contribution must be excluded or subtracted. The fixed flow exhalation appears to be the preferred method as it is highly reproducible and acceptable.
鼻腔一氧化氮测量可能是上呼吸道炎症的替代标志物。然而,目前尚无标准化的测量技术;这促使我们研究测量技术的可接受性和重复性。我们对5名受试者的鼻腔一氧化氮流量依赖性进行了研究。在13名健康志愿者中,通过以下五种方法在线测量鼻腔一氧化氮:1)潮式鼻呼吸和口呼吸:在单纯鼻呼吸后紧接着单纯口潮式呼吸时进行一氧化氮采样;2)固定流量呼气:在单纯鼻呼吸后紧接着从肺总量以100毫升/秒的流速进行单纯口呼气时进行一氧化氮采样;3)鼻-口抽吸:声门关闭,以100毫升/秒的流速通过两个鼻孔从口腔抽吸空气;4)单鼻孔抽吸:使用一氧化氮分析仪采样管,软腭关闭,以3.3毫升/秒的流速从一个鼻孔抽吸空气;5)鼻腔吹入:软腭关闭,以100毫升/秒的流速向另一个鼻孔吹入空气时,在一个鼻孔采样一氧化氮。所有方法的可接受性均由受试者和技术人员进行评估。鼻腔一氧化氮浓度与经鼻流速呈显著负相关。除潮式呼吸外,所有方法通过组内相关系数评估均显示出良好的重复性,潮式呼吸虽然平均呼吸值具有可重复性,但呼吸间一氧化氮水平变化很大。方法1、2、3、4和5测得的鼻腔一氧化氮平均浓度分别为32.1、50.2、62.8、1381和60.0 ppb。方法4和5中软腭关闭并非总能实现,而方法1和2需要分别进行鼻和口的操作。方法5的可接受性降低。使用相同气流的方法(2、3和5)测得的一氧化氮浓度相似。鼻腔一氧化氮可以通过不同方式采样,且重复性良好。鉴于鼻腔一氧化氮的流量依赖性,使用恒定流速至关重要,并且必须排除或减去下呼吸道一氧化氮的贡献。固定流量呼气似乎是首选方法,因为它具有高度的可重复性和可接受性。