Search

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) is used to assess eosinophilic inflammation of the airways. FENO values are influenced by the expiratory flow rate and orally produced NO. We measured FENO at four different expiratory flow levels after two different mouthwashes: tap water and carbonated water. Further, we compared the alveolar NO concentration (CANO), maximum airway NO flux (J'awNO) and airway NO diffusion (DawNO) after these two mouthwashes. FENO was measured in 30 volunteers (healthy or asthmatic) with a chemiluminescence NO-analyser at flow rates of 30, 50, 100 and 300 mL/s. A mouthwash was performed before the measurement at every flow rate. The carbonated water mouthwash significantly reduced FENO compared to the tap water mouthwash at all expiratory flows: 50 mL/s (p < .001), 30 mL/s (p = .001), 100 mL/s (p < .001) and 300 mL/s (p = .004). J'awNO was also significantly reduced (p = .017), however, there were no significant differences in CANO and DawNO. In conclusion, a carbonated water mouthwash can significantly reduce oropharyngeal NO compared to a tap water mouthwash at expiratory flows of 30-300 mL/s without affecting the CANO and DawNO. Therefore, mouthwashes need to be taken into account when comparing FENO results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare the acceptability, reproducibility, and sensitivity of spirometric outcome measures of airway caliber during challenge testing in children.Design: FEV(1), forced expiratory volume in 0.75 s, forced expiratory volume in 0.5 s, and peak expiratory flow (PEF) were recorded during stepwise dosimetric histamine challenge tests. The responses were compared, and the reproducibility at baseline and from duplicate measurements at each challenge step was determined.Patients: One hundred five children with newly diagnosed asthma, aged 5 to 10 years.Results: Compared to PEF, FEV(1) showed better baseline reproducibility (p = 0.002) and higher sensitivity (p < 0.0001) during challenge testing, determined as the change normalized to the baseline variation, while the forced expiratory volumes were not significantly different in these respects. During challenge testing in subjects with acceptable flow-volume tracings, paired recordings of FEV(1) agreed within 0.1 L in 85% and within 0.2 L in 93% of measurements. During challenge testing, the reproducibility of FEV(1) measurements was not better than that of the other indexes. Failure to exhale long enough precluded the use of FEV(1) in 16 of the children, particularly the youngest children.Conclusions: The results demonstrated that the recently published guidelines for FEV(1) measurements during challenge tests can be applied to children. During challenge tests in asthmatic children, the advantage of the shorter fractions of forced expiratory volume was that they were more often acceptably recorded than FEV(1), while they showed as good reproducibility and were also equally sensitive in assessing changes in airway obstruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]