Bryan Raudenbush1. 1. Department of Psychology, Human Psychophysiology Laboratory, Wheeling Jesuit University, Wheeling, WV 26003, USA. raudenbc@wju.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several nasal dilator devices designed to stent the anterior nasal airway to increase peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) currently exist; however, comparisons of such devices are limited. This study was designed to compare the efficacy of two different nasal dilator devices, an internal device (Max-Air Nose Cones; Sanostec Corp., Beverly Farms, MA) and an external device (Breathe Right nasal strip; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, Middlesex, U.K.) on stenting of the anterior nasal airway to maximize PNIF. METHODS: Repeated measurements of PNIF were obtained in 30 individuals noting complaints of sleep-disordered breathing due to nasal breathing discomfort and nasal airway obstruction, both with and without the two different nasal dilator devices. RESULTS: A one-within analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed among the three conditions (control, Max-Air Nose Cones, and Breathe Right nasal strip), and a statistically significant effect was found (F[2,58] = 298.13; p< 0.00001). Tukey post hoc contrasts revealed that the control condition PNIF (66.07 L/min) was significantly lower than both the Max-Air Nose Cones (138.73 L/min) and the Breathe Right nasal strip (102.17 L/min) conditions. The Max-Air Nose Cone increased inspiratory airflow by 73 L/min, or a 110% improvement over baseline. In addition, the Max-Air Nose Cone condition PNIF was significantly higher than both the control condition and the nasal strip condition. CONCLUSION: Although both the Max-Air Nose Cones and the Breathe Right nasal strips increased PNIF from baseline, the Max-Air Nose Cones showed significantly greater efficacy at stenting the anterior nasal airway, providing twice the improvement in PNIF over baseline than did the Breathe Right nasal strips.
BACKGROUND: Several nasal dilator devices designed to stent the anterior nasal airway to increase peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) currently exist; however, comparisons of such devices are limited. This study was designed to compare the efficacy of two different nasal dilator devices, an internal device (Max-Air Nose Cones; Sanostec Corp., Beverly Farms, MA) and an external device (Breathe Right nasal strip; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, Middlesex, U.K.) on stenting of the anterior nasal airway to maximize PNIF. METHODS: Repeated measurements of PNIF were obtained in 30 individuals noting complaints of sleep-disordered breathing due to nasal breathing discomfort and nasal airway obstruction, both with and without the two different nasal dilator devices. RESULTS: A one-within analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed among the three conditions (control, Max-Air Nose Cones, and Breathe Right nasal strip), and a statistically significant effect was found (F[2,58] = 298.13; p< 0.00001). Tukey post hoc contrasts revealed that the control condition PNIF (66.07 L/min) was significantly lower than both the Max-Air Nose Cones (138.73 L/min) and the Breathe Right nasal strip (102.17 L/min) conditions. The Max-Air Nose Cone increased inspiratory airflow by 73 L/min, or a 110% improvement over baseline. In addition, the Max-Air Nose Cone condition PNIF was significantly higher than both the control condition and the nasal strip condition. CONCLUSION: Although both the Max-Air Nose Cones and the Breathe Right nasal strips increased PNIF from baseline, the Max-Air Nose Cones showed significantly greater efficacy at stenting the anterior nasal airway, providing twice the improvement in PNIF over baseline than did the Breathe Right nasal strips.