E De Wachter1, I De Schutter2, A Meulemans3, R Buyl4, A Malfroot2. 1. CF Clinic, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: elke.dewachter@uzbrussel.be. 2. CF Clinic, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Dept of Clinical Nutrition, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Biostatistics and Medical Informatics Department, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: According to European and US protocols, two nasal potential difference (NPD) measurement methods are considered acceptable, although they have not been formally compared: subcutaneous agar-filled needle with calomel (Ndl) and dermal abrasion with conducting cream and Ag/AgCl electrodes (Abr). We compared both in CF and healthy volunteers (HV), assessing their discriminative value and subject's preference. METHODS: Twelve classic CF and 17 HV underwent both NPD methods, performed by one operator in random order. A written questionnaire, assessing preference, was completed after each test. Tracings were coded, scored in a semi-blinded fashion and categorised as CF/non-CF. RESULTS: 110 tracings (56 Ndl/54 Abr) were collected: 42/110 scored CF and 68/110 non-CF, showing a good correlation. No significant preference for either method was reported. CONCLUSION: Both NPD methods are similar in terms of discriminative value and subject's preference, comparing classical CF and HV. For diagnosing CF, the operator's preferred NPD-method may be used.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: According to European and US protocols, two nasal potential difference (NPD) measurement methods are considered acceptable, although they have not been formally compared: subcutaneous agar-filled needle with calomel (Ndl) and dermal abrasion with conducting cream and Ag/AgCl electrodes (Abr). We compared both in CF and healthy volunteers (HV), assessing their discriminative value and subject's preference. METHODS: Twelve classic CF and 17 HV underwent both NPD methods, performed by one operator in random order. A written questionnaire, assessing preference, was completed after each test. Tracings were coded, scored in a semi-blinded fashion and categorised as CF/non-CF. RESULTS: 110 tracings (56 Ndl/54 Abr) were collected: 42/110 scored CF and 68/110 non-CF, showing a good correlation. No significant preference for either method was reported. CONCLUSION: Both NPD methods are similar in terms of discriminative value and subject's preference, comparing classical CF and HV. For diagnosing CF, the operator's preferred NPD-method may be used.
Authors: Elenara da Fonseca Andrade Procianoy; Fernando Antônio de Abreu E Silva; Paulo José Cauduro Maróstica; Paul M Quinton Journal: Lung Date: 2019-11-16 Impact factor: 2.584