ABSTRACT
The goal of this study was to compare the effectiveness of three treatments aiming to reduce nasal airflow resistance (NR): an external nasal strip device (Respir+), an internal nasal mechanical dilator (Nozovent), and a topical decongestant (Pernazène). NR was estimated by active posterior rhinometry at both a 0.5 L/s flow (NRF) and a 1 cm H2O pressure (NRP), under four conditions: in the basal state, with Respir+, with Nozovent, and after treatment with Pernazène. The efficacy of each treatment was assessed by the percentage changes in NRF and NRP (%NRF and %NRP, respectively). The study was performed in 15 healthy subjects. The efficacy of the treatments was significantly different, depending on whether it was evaluated by NRF or by NRP (p<0.02), with %NRF and %NRP values, respectively, equal to the following: 88+/-20% and 91+/-14% with Respir+, 58+/-17% and 70+/-13% with Nozovent, and 55+/-29% and 69+/-22% with Pernazène. NRF remained unchanged with Respir+, whereas it significantly decreased with Nozovent and Pernazène (p<0.0001). No significant difference was observed between the effects of the two latter treatments. These results demonstrate that Nozovent, which involves no risk of side effects or drug interactions, is an effective treatment to improve nasal breathing. Nozovent might therefore be recommended as an alternative to topical decongestants, for certain subjects presenting with nasal obstruction.
Subject(s)
Airway Resistance/physiology , Nose/physiology , Administration, Intranasal , Adolescent , Adrenergic alpha-Agonists/administration & dosage , Adrenergic alpha-Agonists/pharmacology , Adult , Airway Resistance/drug effects , Dilatation , Drug Interactions , Equipment Design , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nasal Decongestants/administration & dosage , Nasal Decongestants/pharmacology , Nasal Obstruction/drug therapy , Nasal Obstruction/therapy , Nose/drug effects , Pressure , Pulmonary Ventilation/drug effects , Pulmonary Ventilation/physiology , RheologyABSTRACT
This study was designed to determine whether nasal airflow resistance (Rn) which is nonlinear during tidal breathing, can be assessed by the forced oscillation (FO) technique. Rn values obtained by the FO technique and extrapolated to 0 Hz (Rn,FO) were compared to those assessed by posterior rhinomanometry at maximal tidal inspiratory flow (Rn,m), at a 0.5 L x s(-1) flow (Rn,F), and at a 1 hPa transnasal pressure (Rn,P). All Rn estimates were derived from the same inspiratory and expiratory nasal flow and transnasal pressure signals obtained during tidal nasal breathing whilst a forced flow was applied at the nose via a rigid nasal mask in 23 healthy volunteers, of whom 14 had additional measurements after vasoconstrictor treatment. In the basal state, no significant difference, and significant correlations (p<0.0001) were found between Rn,FO and the other Rn estimates. Only the regression line of Rn,FO versus Rn,m was not significantly different from the identity line. After nasal decongestion, Rn,P became significantly higher than the other Rn estimates (p<0.005). The regression line of Rn,FO versus Rn,m remained nonsignificantly different from the identity line. Similar results were observed regarding the percentage values of the different Rn estimates after decongestant treatment. This study shows that, despite its nonlinearity, Rn can be assessed by the FO technique, and that Rn,FO and Rn,m could be indifferently used as physiological indices of nasal patency. As the FO technique is more difficult to implement than the conventional rhinomanometry, its interest in rhinology appears not to be obvious.
