ERJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print February 2, 2006, 10.1183/09031936.06.00121305
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Permissions
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lofaso, F.
Right arrow Articles by Fauroux, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lofaso, F.
Right arrow Articles by Fauroux, B.
Eur Respir J 2006; 27:980-982
Copyright ©ERS Journals Ltd 2006

Sniff nasal inspiratory pressure: what is the optimal number of sniffs?

F. Lofaso1,2, F. Nicot3, M. Lejaille1, L. Falaize1, A. Louis1, A. Clement3, J-C. Raphael1, D. Orlikowski1 and B. Fauroux3

1 Services de Réanimation Médicale, de Physiologie-Explorations Fonctionnelles et Centre d'Innovations Technologiques, Hôpital Raymond Poincaré, AP-HP, Garches, 2 INSERM, Créteil, and 3 Service de Pédiatrie Pneumologique et INSERM, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Hôpital Armand Trousseau, AP-HP, Paris, France.

CORRESPONDENCE: F. Lofaso, Service de Physiologie-Explorations Fonctionnelles, Hôpital Raymond Poincaré, 92380 Garches, France. Fax: 33 147107943. E-mail: f.lofaso{at}rpc.ap-hop-paris.fr

Keywords: Cystic fibrosis, learning effect, neuromuscular disease, respiratory muscle strength

Received: October 17, 2005
Accepted January 10, 2006


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP) measurement is a volitional noninvasive assessment of inspiratory muscle strength. A maximum of 10 sniffs is generally used. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether the maximum SNIP improved after the tenth sniff.

In total, 20 healthy volunteers and 305 patients with various neuromuscular and lung diseases were encouraged to perform 40 and 20 sniffs, respectively.

The best SNIP among the first 10 sniffs was lower than the best SNIP among the next 10 sniffs in the healthy volunteers and patients. The SNIP improvement after the twentieth sniff was marginal.

In conclusion, a learning effect persists after the tenth sniff. The current authors suggest using 10 additional sniffs when the best result of the first 10 sniffs is slightly below normal, or when sniff nasal inspiratory pressure is used to monitor a progressive decline in inspiratory muscle strength.

Conventional noninvasive assessment of inspiratory muscle strength involves the measurement of mouth pressure during at least a 1 s-long maximal inspiratory effort against occlusion 1. As this static manoeuvre is difficult to perform, the results vary widely and low values may reflect not only inspiratory muscle weakness, but also a lack of motivation and/or poor coordination.

Sniffing is a natural manoeuvre that many patients find easier to perform than static efforts. The sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP) measurement has been suggested as an alternative 1, 2 or complement 3, 4 to maximal inspiratory pressure measurement. SNIP is measured through a plug occluding one nostril during sniffs through the contralateral nostril. A plateau in pressure is reached after 5–10 sniffs in most individuals 1. For SNIP measurement, 10 sniffs are usually performed. To the current authors' knowledge, there are only two studies of the optimal number of sniffs 5, 6. Stell et al. 5 observed that the highest SNIP was recorded after the tenth sniff in 63% of 51 asthma patients and 45 patients without respiratory disease who performed 15 sniffs. Fitting et al. 6 found that the highest value of the first 10 sniffs was equal, on average, to 93% of the highest value of the first 20 sniffs in nine patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

The purpose of the present study was to look for a learning effect leading to an increase in SNIP values after the tenth sniff in children and adults with a variety of neuromuscular and respiratory disorders.


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The authors' institutional review board approved the current study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants and from the parents of paediatric patients.

Initially, 20 healthy adults unfamiliar with sniff manoeuvres were tested. Tests were conducted in a single session with the individual seated. SNIP was measured from functional residual capacity during 40 maximal sniffs, in a standardised manner as previously described 2. One nostril was occluded using an eartip intended for auditory-evoked potential recording (eartips 13 mm; Nicolet, Madison, WI, USA). The other end of the catheter was connected to a differential pressure transducer (DP15; Validyne, Northridge, CA, USA) wired to a carrier demodulator (CD15; Validyne) and passed through an analogue–digital board to a computer running appropriate software (Biopac System, Goleta, CA, USA) that provided visual feedback. In practice, the subject was instructed to perform short sharp sniffs with closed mouth, starting from the end-expiratory volume after a quiet breath. Each sniff was separated by 30 s and associated with strong verbal encouragement from an observer who continuously coached the subject to obtain maximal pressure amplitude 7. In addition, the pressure signals were displayed on the computer screen to give the patient visual feedback of the performance of the test 7.

Subsequently, 305 patients unfamiliar with sniff manoeuvres were studied over a 2-yr period as part of their routine clinical evaluation at the Raymond Poincaré and Armand Trousseau hospitals (Paris, France). Measurement conditions were the same as above except that patients only performed ≤20 sniffs in case of fatigue or poor cooperation.

Statistical analysis
In healthy individuals, the differences between the best of the first 10 sniffs (best SNIP1–10), second, third and final sets of 10 sniffs (best SNIP11–20, best SNIP21–30 and best SNIP31–40, respectively) were assessed by ANOVA with repeated measurements. Pairwise comparisons were performed using Bonferroni's test, if suitable. In the patients, the difference between best SNIP1–10 and best SNIP11–20 was assessed using a paired t-test. The significance level was set at 5%. All results were reported as mean±SD.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
In the 20 healthy individuals (11 males and nine females aged 42±13 yrs), significant differences occurred among the four mean best SNIP values (best SNIP1–10 92.2±26.2 cmH2O; best SNIP11–20 97.6±25.5 cmH2O; best SNIP21–30 98.2±24.3 cmH2O; best SNIP31–40 98.4±24.7 cmH2O; p = 0.04). The differences seemed largest between best SNIP1–10 and the other values. However, the post hoc analysis showed no significant series effect.

In total, 305 patients were included in the study. Of these, 248 were adults and 51 were children aged ≤16 yrs (mean age 11.6±2.7 yrs). Forty-five patients (33 children) performed <20 sniffs. The six patients (five children) with ≤10 sniffs were excluded from the analysis. Although 39 of the remaining 299 patients performed <20 sniffs, the best SNIP after the tenth sniff was better than the best SNIP1–10, both overall and in several subgroups (adults, children, myotonic dystrophy, spinal cord injury, cystic fibrosis (CF) and poliomyelitis; table 1Go). However, the improvement in SNIP did not reach statistical significance in the subgroups with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy or cerebellar ataxia.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1— Mean best sniff nasal inspiratory pressure(SNIP) in the first 10 sniffs (best SNIP1–10) compared with mean best SNIP in the next 10 sniffs (best SNIP11–20)

 
The mean difference between best SNIP1–10 and best SNIP11–20 was 3.5±7.7 cmH2O (Bland and Altman plot; fig. 1Go). Normal SNIP values in children are similar to those in adults 8, and SNIP values >–70 cmH2O in males and >–60 cmH2O in females militate against meaningful inspiratory muscle weakness 1, 9. According to these data, out of the 231 patients whose SNIP values were abnormal when only the first 10 sniffs were considered, 19 (8.2%) patients had normal muscle strength when all sniffs were considered (myotonic dystrophy n = 3; poliomyelitis n = 3; spinal cord injury n = 3; scoliosis n = 2; myasthenia gravis n = 1; CF n = 2; other neuromuscular or restrictive pulmonary disorders n = 6).


Figure 1
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1— Difference between the best of the first 10 sniffs (best sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP)1–10) and the best of the next 10 sniffs (best SNIP11–20) plotted against the mean of these two variables.–––: mean; ......: 2SD. n = 299.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
The best SNIP during the first 10 sniffs was lower than the best SNIP during the next 10 sniffs. This finding supports a persistent learning effect after the tenth sniff and builds on the findings from patients with asthma and nonrespiratory diseases 5 and patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis 6.

The majority of children with respiratory or neuromuscular disease were unable to adequately perform a series of 20 sniff manoeuvres. However, as sniff values may improve after the tenth manoeuvre (table 1Go), it was suggested that >10 manoeuvres in children should be systematically asked for when possible.

Whether the learning effect is sustained over time is unclear. In healthy individuals, Maillard et al. 10 found that the best SNIP value of 10 sniffs was not different between two sessions 1 day apart or between a third session 1 month later. Thus, learning effects seem to dissipate from one day to the next, indicating that all patients should be considered inexperienced with SNIP measurement.

Out of the 231 patients with abnormal SNIP values when only the first 10 sniffs were considered, 19 patients had normal muscle strength when all sniffs were taken into account. Although this proportion is small, overdiagnosis of muscle weakness when only 10 sniffs are used may have a clinical impact, since SNIP measurement serves to identify patients who need further investigations or are at risk for respiratory failure.

Finally, the present study confirmed the presence of a quick and significant learning effect within each session, when patients were given appropriate visual feedback and verbal encouragement. Thus, a more reliable maximum SNIP may be obtained with optimal technique, but this may require >10 sniffs.

Therefore, the current authors suggest using >10 sniffs when the sniff nasal inspiratory pressure value is slightly below normal or when sniff nasal inspiratory pressure is used to monitor a decline in inspiratory muscle strength.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society. ATS/ERS statement on respiratory muscle testing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002;166:518–624.[Free Full Text]
  2. Heritier F, Rahm F, Pasche P, Fitting J-W. Sniff nasal pressure. A noninvasive assessment of inspiratory muscle strength. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994;150:1678–1683.[Abstract]
  3. Stefanutti D, Benoist M-R, Scheinmann P, Chaussain M, Fitting J-W. Usefulness of sniff nasal pressure in patients with neuromuscular or skeletal disorders. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162:1507–1511.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Hart N, Polkey MI, Sharshar T, et al. Limitations of sniff nasal pressure in patients with severe neuromuscular weakness. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74:1685–1687.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Stell IM, Polkey MI, Rees PJ, Green M, Moxham J. Inspiratory muscle strength in acute asthma. Chest 2001;120:757–764.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Fitting J-W, Paillex R, Hirt L, Aebischer P, Schluep M. Sniff nasal pressure: a sensitive respiratory test to assess progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1999;46:887–893.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Laporta D, Grassino A. Assessment of transdiaphragmatic pressure in humans. J Appl Physiol 1985;58:1469–1476.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Stefanutti D, Fitting JW. Sniff nasal inspiratory pressure. Reference values in Caucasian children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;159:107–111.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Polkey MI, Green M, Moxham J. Measurement of respiratory muscle strength. Thorax 1995;50:1131–1135.[Free Full Text]
  10. Maillard JO, Burdet L, van Melle G, Fitting JW. Reproducibility of twitch mouth pressure, sniff nasal inspiratory pressure, and maximal inspiratory pressure. Eur Respir J 1998;11:901–905.[Abstract]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur Respir JHome page
B. Fauroux, G. Aubertin, E. Cohen, A. Clement, and F. Lofaso
Sniff nasal inspiratory pressure in children with muscular, chest wall or lung disease
Eur. Respir. J., January 1, 2009; 33(1): 113 - 117.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
B. Fauroux, N. Guillemot, G. Aubertin, N. Nathan, A. Labit, A. Clement, and F. Lofaso
Physiologic Benefits of Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation in Children With Neuromuscular Diseases
Chest, January 1, 2008; 133(1): 161 - 168.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
A. Bush
Update in Pediatric Lung Disease 2006
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., March 15, 2007; 175(6): 532 - 540.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Respir JHome page
J-W. Fitting
Sniff nasal inspiratory pressure: simple or too simple?
Eur. Respir. J., May 1, 2006; 27(5): 881 - 883.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Permissions
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lofaso, F.
Right arrow Articles by Fauroux, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lofaso, F.
Right arrow Articles by Fauroux, B.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS