Abstract
NPD is a valuable diagnostic tool in case of questionable CF. Currently, 2 methods,
that are considered equivalent, are used: (A) the Calomel/agar method using a
needle as subcutaneous reference electrode (RE) and (B) the AgCl/ECG cream
method using AgCl electrodes and ECG cream on abraded skin as RE. NPD is
measured with a Marquat® catheter under the inferior turbinate (IT).
Aim: To compare the subjects' acceptance for the 2 methods.
Methods: CF patients and healthy volunteers (HV) had method A and B in 2
nostrils on separate days. After each test they completed the questionnaire (Q):
Did you experience pain at the RE site, at the IT site, during perfusion? Was the
procedure annoying? Would you be prepared to repeat NPD? Which method do
you prefer?
Results: 50 Qs were completed by 12 CF patients (mean age 26.6 y) and 14 HV
(mean age 24.7 y). 16/50 (10A/6B, 3CF/13HV) reported pain at RE site, 7/50
(4A/3B, 3CF/4HV) at IT site, and 1/50 (A, HV) during nasal perfusion. 12/50
(9A/3B, 8CF/4HV) found the procedure annoying. 37/50 would agree to repeat
NPD, 13/50 probably would. 9/24 subjects (3CF/6HV) preferred method A, 5/24
(2CF/3HV) method B and 10/24 (5CF/5HV) had no preference. 2nd testing (B)
was refused twice (2CF) for reasons not related to the test. CF patients reported
less pain at RE site compared to HV (p = 0.017). No other statistical difference was
found between both tests or between subject groups.
Discussion: Overall, NPD was well tolerated. CF patients reported less pain at RE
site compared to HV. Both methods were equally accepted by the study subjects.
Further analyses of the quality of the tracings is needed to decide which method is
most accurate.
that are considered equivalent, are used: (A) the Calomel/agar method using a
needle as subcutaneous reference electrode (RE) and (B) the AgCl/ECG cream
method using AgCl electrodes and ECG cream on abraded skin as RE. NPD is
measured with a Marquat® catheter under the inferior turbinate (IT).
Aim: To compare the subjects' acceptance for the 2 methods.
Methods: CF patients and healthy volunteers (HV) had method A and B in 2
nostrils on separate days. After each test they completed the questionnaire (Q):
Did you experience pain at the RE site, at the IT site, during perfusion? Was the
procedure annoying? Would you be prepared to repeat NPD? Which method do
you prefer?
Results: 50 Qs were completed by 12 CF patients (mean age 26.6 y) and 14 HV
(mean age 24.7 y). 16/50 (10A/6B, 3CF/13HV) reported pain at RE site, 7/50
(4A/3B, 3CF/4HV) at IT site, and 1/50 (A, HV) during nasal perfusion. 12/50
(9A/3B, 8CF/4HV) found the procedure annoying. 37/50 would agree to repeat
NPD, 13/50 probably would. 9/24 subjects (3CF/6HV) preferred method A, 5/24
(2CF/3HV) method B and 10/24 (5CF/5HV) had no preference. 2nd testing (B)
was refused twice (2CF) for reasons not related to the test. CF patients reported
less pain at RE site compared to HV (p = 0.017). No other statistical difference was
found between both tests or between subject groups.
Discussion: Overall, NPD was well tolerated. CF patients reported less pain at RE
site compared to HV. Both methods were equally accepted by the study subjects.
Further analyses of the quality of the tracings is needed to decide which method is
most accurate.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 59-59 |
| Number of pages | 1 |
| Journal | Journal of Cystic Fibrosis |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue number | June |
| Publication status | Published - 2013 |
Keywords
- nasal potential difference
- NPD