Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Inhalational challenge using hypertonic saline in asthmatic subjects: a comparison with responses to hyperpnoea, methacholine and water

CM Smith, SD Anderson
European Respiratory Journal 1990 3: 144-151; DOI:
CM Smith
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SD Anderson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Non-isotonic aerosols are being used increasingly for bronchial provocation testing in patients with asthma. We investigated changes in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) in response to inhaling ultrasonically nebulized 4.5% saline in 10 normal subjects and 68 subjects with asthma. A comparison of the sensitivity to this challenge was made with sensitivity to challenge with methacholine, water, exercise and eucapnic voluntary hyperventilation (EVH). In normal subjects the FEV1 was reduced by 6 +/- 2% (mean +/- SD) after inhalation of 33 ml of aerosol. Eighty four percent of the asthmatic subjects exhibited a fall in FEV1 of greater than 20% after inhaling 4.5% saline. The provoking dose (geometric mean +/- 95% confidence limits) of saline to induce a 20% fall (PD20) was 2.05 ml (1.34-4.48). The sensitivity to inhaled 4.5% saline was significantly related (p less than 0.001) with responsiveness to methacholine, exercise and EVH, but not to water. Those patients recording a PD20 to 4.5% saline had a PD20 to methacholine less than 2 mumol which is a response consistent with moderate to severe bronchial hyperresponsiveness.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 3 Issue 2 Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Inhalational challenge using hypertonic saline in asthmatic subjects: a comparison with responses to hyperpnoea, methacholine and water
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Inhalational challenge using hypertonic saline in asthmatic subjects: a comparison with responses to hyperpnoea, methacholine and water
CM Smith, SD Anderson
European Respiratory Journal Feb 1990, 3 (2) 144-151;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Inhalational challenge using hypertonic saline in asthmatic subjects: a comparison with responses to hyperpnoea, methacholine and water
CM Smith, SD Anderson
European Respiratory Journal Feb 1990, 3 (2) 144-151;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Identifying early PAH biomarkers in systemic sclerosis
  • Viable virus aerosol propagation by PAP circuit leak
  • Ambulatory management of secondary spontaneous pneumothorax
Show more Original articles

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society