PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Andreas Jung
AU  - Selina Summermatter
AU  - Christian Geidel
AU  - Alexander Möller
AU  - Günter Menz
AU  - Roger Lauener
TI  - Diagnostic value of nasal NO measurement using the NIOX MINO device
DP  - 2012 Sep 01
TA  - European Respiratory Journal
PG  - P1089
VI  - 40
IP  - Suppl 56
4099  - http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/40/Suppl_56/P1089.short
4100  - http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/40/Suppl_56/P1089.full
SO  - Eur Respir J2012 Sep 01; 40
AB  - Background: Screening for primary ciliary dyskinesia might become more widespread with the release of the new NIOX MINO hand held nasal NO (nNO) analyzer. However, no data on accuracy and quality of the measurements are available. This study aimed to compare nNO analysis with the NIOX MINO to the NIOX FLEX gold standard device.Methods: Nasal NO was assessed in healthy children and adults by NIOX FLEX, followed by NIOX MINO (flow rate 5 ml/s). For each device, measurements consisted of a tests with subjects holding their breath (BH), followed by a tests with tidal breathing (TB) through a medium-sized straw (Jung 2012). A test was considered valid when nNO values reached a stable plateau.Results: 48 subjects (median age 34.4 yrs) were included. No optical quality control (nNO or CO2 curve) was available for the NIOX MINO. A BH test with the NIOX MINO requires a breath hold of 45s, which only 12 subjects were able to perform (25%; median breath hold time 25s). In general, NIOX MINO nNO levels were significantly lower than for NIOX FLEX (all p<0.001). For the conventional BH technique, median (quartiles) nNO levels were 861 (670, 1147) ppb for NIOX FLEX vs. 657 (445, 786) ppb for NIOX Mino, whereas median nNO values for the TB technique were 867 (692, 1187) ppb vs. 687 (537, 865) ppb.Conclusion: Nasal NO values in healthy subjects are generally lower when the NIOX MINO is used, compared to the gold standard method. This might lead to interpretation problems when the technique is applied in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis or younger children with lower expected nNO levels (ongoing studies). No quality control is available for the device, making the correct interpretation of low values even more difficult.