[Nasal provocation using histamine. A comparison of threshold determination using 3 methods of rhinomanometry].
Frans Gordts, Peter A. R. Clement, Marie-Paule Derde
Abstract
Frans Gordts, Peter A. R. Clement, Marie-Paule Derde
Abstract
Three methods of rhinomanometry were compared with each other with respect to their ability to determine the histamine threshold (histamine concentration for a 100% increase of the initial total nasal resistance): the active anterior rhinomanometry (AAR), the active posterior rhinomanometry (APR) and the passive anterior rhinomanometry (PAR). Nasal challenge and consecutive measurement by the three methods of rhinomanometry were conducted in a group of 11 volunteers. The three methods gave significantly different histamine concentration thresholds (p = 0.002). Unilateral histamine thresholds as available from AAR and PAR (at a flow of 250 cm3/sec) did not differ significantly (p = 0.299). For AAR and APR, histamine thresholds were assessed at 5 different pressure values as well as at 5 different flow values. The thresholds did not appear to be significantly different at any one of those pressure gradients (p = 0.690) or flow values (p = 0.357).
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Three methods of rhinomanometry were compared with each other with respect to their ability to determine the histamine threshold (histamine concentration for a 100% increase of the initial total nasal resistance): the active anterior rhinomanometry (AAR), the active posterior rhinomanometry (APR) and the passive anterior rhinomanometry (PAR). Nasal challenge and consecutive measurement by the three methods of rhinomanometry were conducted in a group of 11 volunteers. The three methods gave significantly different histamine concentration thresholds (p = 0.002). Unilateral histamine thresholds as available from AAR and PAR (at a flow of 250 cm3/sec) did not differ significantly (p = 0.299). For AAR and APR, histamine thresholds were assessed at 5 different pressure values as well as at 5 different flow values. The thresholds did not appear to be significantly different at any one of those pressure gradients (p = 0.690) or flow values (p = 0.357).
Key concepts: Rhinomanometry, Histamine, Provocation test, Medicine, Anesthesia, Chemistry, Nose, Internal medicine