Clinical Assessment of Rhinitis with Respiratory Pressure Meter.
- Author:
Ki Hye SUNG
1
;
Yong Mean PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Pediatrics, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. frigia80@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Respiratory pressure meter;
Sniff nasal inspiratory pressure;
Peak nasal inspiratory flow;
Rhinitis;
Nasal obstruction
- MeSH:
Child;
Humans;
Nasal Obstruction;
Rhinitis*;
Skin
- From:Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease
2007;17(1):48-55
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Nasal stuffness is one of most common symptom in children who suffer from rhinitis although there is still debates at to the best measurable device. The aim of the study was to evaluate the sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP) with respiratory pressure meter and compare this with the clinical status of patients. METHODS: We enrolled 57 rhinitis patients who visited our hospital during June 2005 to July 2006. They were treated with intranasal steroid spray (mometasone furoate) for first 2 weeks. To evaluate the outcome of treatment, we used symptom score (SS) and measured the SNIP with respiratory pressure meter (Micro RPM, Micro Medical, Rochester, UK) and also measured peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) with peak nasal inspiratory flow meter (Youlten peak flow meter, Clement Clarke Int., London, UK) before and after the therapy. Skin prick test was performed to all patient to classify the atopic (AR) and non-atopic rhinitis (NAR). RESULTS: Among 57 identified patients (median age, 7 years 9 months), 40 AR and 17 NAR were studied. Most patient showed clinically improvement with 2 weeks intranasal steroid therapy (0 wk SS=4.9, 2 wk SS=1.7 in AR; 0 wk SS=4.5, 2 wk SS=1.5 in NAR, P< 0.01). The SNIP of AR group was increased after intranasal therapy (0 wk SNIP=58.5 cm H2O, 2 wk SNIP=76.2 cmH2O; P<0.01). There was also significant improvement in terms of SNIP in NAR group (0 wk SNIP=51.7 cmH2O, 2 wk SNIP=62.9 cmH2O, P<0.01). However, we could not find any correlation between SS and SNIP. Although there was the improvement of symptoms scores, there was no significant difference of peak flow between before and after treatment (71.9-->77.6 L/min, P>0.05). And there was no correlation between SNIP and PNIF measurement. CONCLUSION: The respiratory pressure meter is a useful device to evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness and clinical improvement in pediatric rhinitis patients.
