[日本两种离线方法与NO breath®方法测量呼出一氧化氮水平的比较]

[Comparison of exhaled nitric oxide levels measured by two offline methods and the NO breath® method in Japan].

作者信息

Ito Jun, Tsuburai Takahiro, Atsuta Ryo, Watai Kentaro, Fukuhara Masanori, Hayashi Hiroaki, Minami Takafumi, Tanimoto Hidenori, Oshikata Chiyako, Sekiya Kiyoshi, Tsurikizawa Naomi, Fukutomi Yuma, Harada Norihiro, Maeda Yuji, Mori Akio, Hasegawa Maki, Taniguchi Masami, Takahashi Kazuhisa, Akiyama Kazuo

机构信息

Clinical Research Center for Allergy and Rheumatology, National Hospital Organization, Sagamihara National Hospital; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Juntendo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Clinical Research Center for Allergy and Rheumatology, National Hospital Organization, Sagamihara National Hospital.

出版信息

Arerugi. 2014 Nov;63(9):1241-9.

PMID:25492879

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a useful marker of eosinophilic airway inflammation in asthmatics. Clinical application of FeNO measurement in Japan is expected increase because the procedure is now covered through health insurance. However, the measurement system used is known to affect FeNO results, and it remains unknown whether results from offline methods correlate with those from traditional online methods, such as NO breath®.

METHODS

The study population comprised 48 patients at our hospital. FeNO levels were measured by using two offline methods (Sievers and CEIS) and a standard online method, NO breath®

RESULTS

FeNONO breath levels were significantly correlated with FeNOSievers(r=0.875) and FeNOCEIS(r=0.888) levels. FeNONO breath levels were nearly equal to FeNOSievers results (FeNONO breath=1.05×FeNOSievers), but both of these levels were lower (p=0.02) than FeNOCEIS data (FeNONO breath=0.74×FeNOCEIS). A Bland-Altman plot of values obtained by the NO breath® and Sievers methods revealed that the NO breath® result was lower than the Sievers level when FeNO was low but was higher than the Sievers level when FeNO was high.

CONCLUSION

Differences exist in the levels of FeNO measurement by three methods (two offline methods and NO breath®): conversion equations are needed to compare the FeNO levels obtained by using these three methods. In addition, NO breath® may be more useful to distinguish asthmatic patients from non-asthmatics, compared with Sievers method.

摘要

背景

呼出一氧化氮分数（FeNO）是哮喘患者嗜酸性气道炎症的有用标志物。由于该检测程序现已纳入医疗保险范围，预计FeNO检测在日本的临床应用将会增加。然而，已知所使用的检测系统会影响FeNO检测结果，并且离线方法的检测结果与传统在线方法（如NO breath®）的检测结果是否相关仍不清楚。

方法

研究人群包括我院的48例患者。使用两种离线方法（Sievers和CEIS）和一种标准在线方法NO breath®测量FeNO水平。

结果

FeNO NO breath水平与FeNO Sievers（r = 0.875）和FeNO CEIS（r = 0.888）水平显著相关。FeNO NO breath水平几乎等于FeNO Sievers的结果（FeNO NO breath = 1.05×FeNO Sievers），但这两个水平均低于FeNO CEIS数据（FeNO NO breath = 0.74×FeNO CEIS）（p = 0.02）。通过NO breath®和Sievers方法获得的值的Bland-Altman图显示，当FeNO较低时，NO breath®结果低于Sievers水平，但当FeNO较高时，NO breath®结果高于Sievers水平。