Comparison of three different exhaled nitric oxide analyzers in chronic respiratory disorders.

BACKGROUND: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measurement is a simple and non-invasive method for monitoring eosinophilic airway inflammation. New portable analyzers for FeNO measurements are constantly being developed. The aim of our study was to evaluate the agreement of FeNO values measured by new portable analyzers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: FeNO was measured in 20 healthy subjects, 20 asthmatic and 20 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients using the analyzers Niox-VERO, Vivatmo-PRO and HypAir-FeNO. A linear relationship was estimated with Pearson's coefficient (r), and absolute agreement by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and bias with the limits of agreement (95% of paired differences) were assessed according to the Bland-Altman method.

RESULTS: In the study population (58 ± 14 years, 20 females), mean values of FeNO with their 95% confidence interval were 24.0 (18.6-29.4) with the Niox-VERO, 19.6 (13.6-25.7) with the Vivatmo-PRO and 20.4 (15.7-25.1) with the HypAir-FeNO. FeNO measured with the Niox-VERO was higher than the Vivatmo-PRO (mean difference of paired values +4.3; limits -16.0 to 25.7 ppb) and the HypAir-FeNO (+3.6; -12.2 to 19.4 ppb); the Vivatmo-PRO and HypAir-FeNO showed large variability of paired differences (-0.7; -16.5 to 15.0 ppb). Measurements linearly correlated with an imperfect absolute agreement: Niox-VERO versus Vivatmo-PRO r = 0.90 and ICC = 0.87; Niox-VERO versus HypAir-FeNO r = 0.93 and ICC = 0.90, Vivatmo-PRO versus HypAir-FeNO r = 0.96 and ICC = 0.93. Most of the disagreement was greater in some asthmatic patients at high values of FeNO.

CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicates that absolute exhaled NO measurements may differ to a clinically relevant extent using the Niox-VERO, Vivatmo-PRO and HypAir-FeNO analyzers. The devices cannot be used interchangeably.