BACKGROUND: The use of portable fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) devices is increasingly common in the diagnosis and management of allergic airways inflammation. METHODS: We tested two handheld FENO devices, to determine (a) if there was adequate intradevice repeatability to allow the use of single breath testing, and (b) if the devices could be used interchangeably. In a mixed pediatric population, including normal, asthmatic, and children with peanut allergies, 858 paired values were collected from the NIOX-MINO® and/or the NObreath® devices. RESULTS: The NIOX-MINO® showed excellent repeatability (mean difference of 0.1 with 95% limits of agreement between -7.93 to 7.72 ppb), while the NObreath® showed good repeatability (mean difference of -1.61 with 95% limits of agreement between -14.1 and 10.8 ppb). Intradevice repeatability was good but not adequate and the NIOX-MINO® systematically produced higher results than the NObreath® [mean difference of 7.8 ppb with 95% limits of agreement from -11.55 to 27.52 ppb (-33% to 290%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the manufacturer's advice that single breath testing is appropriate for the NIOX-MINO®. NObreath® results indicate that the mean of more than one breath should be utilized. The devices cannot be used interchangeably.
BACKGROUND: The use of portable fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) devices is increasingly common in the diagnosis and management of allergic airways inflammation. METHODS: We tested two handheld FENO devices, to determine (a) if there was adequate intradevice repeatability to allow the use of single breath testing, and (b) if the devices could be used interchangeably. In a mixed pediatric population, including normal, asthmatic, and children with peanutallergies, 858 paired values were collected from the NIOX-MINO® and/or the NObreath® devices. RESULTS: The NIOX-MINO® showed excellent repeatability (mean difference of 0.1 with 95% limits of agreement between -7.93 to 7.72 ppb), while the NObreath® showed good repeatability (mean difference of -1.61 with 95% limits of agreement between -14.1 and 10.8 ppb). Intradevice repeatability was good but not adequate and the NIOX-MINO® systematically produced higher results than the NObreath® [mean difference of 7.8 ppb with 95% limits of agreement from -11.55 to 27.52 ppb (-33% to 290%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the manufacturer's advice that single breath testing is appropriate for the NIOX-MINO®. NObreath® results indicate that the mean of more than one breath should be utilized. The devices cannot be used interchangeably.
Authors: YiChieh Kuo; Francis Fu-Sheng Wu; YingChung Lee; Theodore Rong-Yei Lin; Julian Crane; Robert Siebers Journal: Int J Occup Environ Med Date: 2018-10
Authors: Konstantin O Zamuruyev; Alexander A Aksenov; Mark Baird; Alberto Pasamontes; Celeste Parry; Soraya Foutouhi; Stephanie Venn-Watson; Bart C Weimer; Jean-Pierre Delplanque; Cristina E Davis Journal: J Breath Res Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 3.262
Authors: Ji Young Park; Taehoon Lee; Hongyeul Lee; Yeon Joo Lee; Jong Sun Park; Young-Jae Cho; Ho Il Yoon; Jae Ho Lee; Choon-Taek Lee Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2014-05-12 Impact factor: 3.317