Comparison of exhaled breath condensate pH using two commercially available devices in healthy controls, asthma and COPD patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Analysis of exhaled breath condensate (EBC) is a non-invasive method for studying the acidity (pH) of airway secretions in patients with inflammatory lung diseases.</p> <p>Aim</p> <p>To assess the reproducibil...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Vogelmeier Claus, Gauw Stefanie A, Bals Robert, Schot Robert, Dragonieri Silvano, Koczulla Rembert, Rabe Klaus F, Sterk Peter J, Hiemstra Pieter S
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2009-08-01
Series:Respiratory Research
Online Access:http://respiratory-research.com/content/10/1/78
id doaj-26dac928d4754831bc26b0da2dca7e6a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-26dac928d4754831bc26b0da2dca7e6a2020-11-24T22:58:49ZengBMCRespiratory Research1465-99212009-08-011017810.1186/1465-9921-10-78Comparison of exhaled breath condensate pH using two commercially available devices in healthy controls, asthma and COPD patientsVogelmeier ClausGauw Stefanie ABals RobertSchot RobertDragonieri SilvanoKoczulla RembertRabe Klaus FSterk Peter JHiemstra Pieter S<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Analysis of exhaled breath condensate (EBC) is a non-invasive method for studying the acidity (pH) of airway secretions in patients with inflammatory lung diseases.</p> <p>Aim</p> <p>To assess the reproducibility of EBC pH for two commercially available devices (portable RTube and non-portable ECoScreen) in healthy controls, patients with asthma or COPD, and subjects suffering from an acute cold with lower-airway symptoms. In addition, we assessed the repeatability in healthy controls.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>EBC was collected from 40 subjects (n = 10 in each of the above groups) using RTube and ECoScreen. EBC was collected from controls on two separate occasions within 5 days. pH in EBC was assessed after degasification with argon for 20 min.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In controls, pH-measurements in EBC collected by RTube or ECoScreen showed no significant difference between devices (p = 0.754) or between days (repeatability coefficient RTube: 0.47; ECoScreen: 0.42) of collection. A comparison between EBC pH collected by the two devices in asthma, COPD and cold patients also showed good reproducibility. No differences in pH values were observed between controls (mean pH 8.27; RTube) and patients with COPD (pH 7.97) or asthma (pH 8.20), but lower values were found using both devices in patients with a cold (pH 7.56; RTube, p < 0.01; ECoScreen, p < 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We conclude that pH measurements in EBC collected by RTube and ECoScreen are repeatable and reproducible in healthy controls, and are reproducible and comparable in healthy controls, COPD and asthma patients, and subjects with a common cold.</p> http://respiratory-research.com/content/10/1/78
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Vogelmeier Claus
Gauw Stefanie A
Bals Robert
Schot Robert
Dragonieri Silvano
Koczulla Rembert
Rabe Klaus F
Sterk Peter J
Hiemstra Pieter S
spellingShingle Vogelmeier Claus
Gauw Stefanie A
Bals Robert
Schot Robert
Dragonieri Silvano
Koczulla Rembert
Rabe Klaus F
Sterk Peter J
Hiemstra Pieter S
Comparison of exhaled breath condensate pH using two commercially available devices in healthy controls, asthma and COPD patients
Respiratory Research
author_facet Vogelmeier Claus
Gauw Stefanie A
Bals Robert
Schot Robert
Dragonieri Silvano
Koczulla Rembert
Rabe Klaus F
Sterk Peter J
Hiemstra Pieter S
author_sort Vogelmeier Claus
title Comparison of exhaled breath condensate pH using two commercially available devices in healthy controls, asthma and COPD patients
title_short Comparison of exhaled breath condensate pH using two commercially available devices in healthy controls, asthma and COPD patients
title_full Comparison of exhaled breath condensate pH using two commercially available devices in healthy controls, asthma and COPD patients
title_fullStr Comparison of exhaled breath condensate pH using two commercially available devices in healthy controls, asthma and COPD patients
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of exhaled breath condensate pH using two commercially available devices in healthy controls, asthma and COPD patients
title_sort comparison of exhaled breath condensate ph using two commercially available devices in healthy controls, asthma and copd patients
publisher BMC
series Respiratory Research
issn 1465-9921
publishDate 2009-08-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Analysis of exhaled breath condensate (EBC) is a non-invasive method for studying the acidity (pH) of airway secretions in patients with inflammatory lung diseases.</p> <p>Aim</p> <p>To assess the reproducibility of EBC pH for two commercially available devices (portable RTube and non-portable ECoScreen) in healthy controls, patients with asthma or COPD, and subjects suffering from an acute cold with lower-airway symptoms. In addition, we assessed the repeatability in healthy controls.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>EBC was collected from 40 subjects (n = 10 in each of the above groups) using RTube and ECoScreen. EBC was collected from controls on two separate occasions within 5 days. pH in EBC was assessed after degasification with argon for 20 min.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In controls, pH-measurements in EBC collected by RTube or ECoScreen showed no significant difference between devices (p = 0.754) or between days (repeatability coefficient RTube: 0.47; ECoScreen: 0.42) of collection. A comparison between EBC pH collected by the two devices in asthma, COPD and cold patients also showed good reproducibility. No differences in pH values were observed between controls (mean pH 8.27; RTube) and patients with COPD (pH 7.97) or asthma (pH 8.20), but lower values were found using both devices in patients with a cold (pH 7.56; RTube, p < 0.01; ECoScreen, p < 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We conclude that pH measurements in EBC collected by RTube and ECoScreen are repeatable and reproducible in healthy controls, and are reproducible and comparable in healthy controls, COPD and asthma patients, and subjects with a common cold.</p>
url http://respiratory-research.com/content/10/1/78
work_keys_str_mv AT vogelmeierclaus comparisonofexhaledbreathcondensatephusingtwocommerciallyavailabledevicesinhealthycontrolsasthmaandcopdpatients
AT gauwstefaniea comparisonofexhaledbreathcondensatephusingtwocommerciallyavailabledevicesinhealthycontrolsasthmaandcopdpatients
AT balsrobert comparisonofexhaledbreathcondensatephusingtwocommerciallyavailabledevicesinhealthycontrolsasthmaandcopdpatients
AT schotrobert comparisonofexhaledbreathcondensatephusingtwocommerciallyavailabledevicesinhealthycontrolsasthmaandcopdpatients
AT dragonierisilvano comparisonofexhaledbreathcondensatephusingtwocommerciallyavailabledevicesinhealthycontrolsasthmaandcopdpatients
AT koczullarembert comparisonofexhaledbreathcondensatephusingtwocommerciallyavailabledevicesinhealthycontrolsasthmaandcopdpatients
AT rabeklausf comparisonofexhaledbreathcondensatephusingtwocommerciallyavailabledevicesinhealthycontrolsasthmaandcopdpatients
AT sterkpeterj comparisonofexhaledbreathcondensatephusingtwocommerciallyavailabledevicesinhealthycontrolsasthmaandcopdpatients
AT hiemstrapieters comparisonofexhaledbreathcondensatephusingtwocommerciallyavailabledevicesinhealthycontrolsasthmaandcopdpatients
_version_ 1725646327966072832