Difference between two exhaled nitric oxide analyzers, NIOX VERO<sup>®</sup> electrochemical hand-held analyzer and NOA280i<sup>®</sup> chemiluminescence stationary analyzer
Creators: name: Tanabe, Yuki
name: Harada, Norihiro
name: Ito, Jun
name: Matsuno, Kei
name: Takeshige, Tomohito
name: Harada, Sonoko
name: Mirano Takemasa
name: Kotajima, Masaki
name: Ishimori, Ayako
name: Katsura, Yoko
name: Makino, Fumihiko
name: Atsuta, Ryo
name: Takahashi, Kazuhisa
Publisher: name: Taylor & Francis
Year: 2018
Subjects: subject: Medicine
subject: Physiology
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: 59999 Environmental Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: FOS: Earth and related environmental sciences
subject: FOS: Earth and related environmental sciences
subject: 39999 Chemical Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: FOS: Chemical sciences
subject: FOS: Chemical sciences
subject: Science Policy
subject: 111714 Mental Health
subject: FOS: Health sciences
subject: FOS: Health sciences

description: <i>Background</i>: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FE<sub>NO</sub>) is useful for the evaluation of eosinophilic airway inflammation, including that seen in asthma. Although a new electrochemical hand-held FE<sub>NO</sub> analyzer, the NIOX VERO<sup>®</sup> (Aerocrine AB, Solna, Sweden), is clinically convenient to use, it has not been fully compared with the chemiluminescence stationary electrochemical analyzer NOA280i<sup>®</sup> (Sievers Instruments, Boulder, CO, USA) in terms of the level of measured FE<sub>NO</sub>. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference between the two analyzers. <i>Methods</i>: The FE<sub>NO</sub> levels measured with both NIOX VERO<sup>®</sup> and NOA280i<sup>®</sup> were evaluated in 1,369 adults at Juntendo University Hospital from May 2016 to October 2016. <i>Results</i>: The median FE<sub>NO</sub> level measured with the NIOX VERO<sup>®</sup> was significantly lower than that measured with the NOA280i<sup>®</sup> (41 ppb, range 5–368 ppb vs. 29 ppb, range 5–251 ppb; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). There was a strong positive correlation in the measurement of FE<sub>NO</sub> level between the NOA280i<sup>®</sup> and the NIOX VERO<sup>®</sup> (r = 0.942, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). The following conversion equation was calculated: FE<sub>NO</sub> (NOA280i<sup>®</sup>) = 1.362 (SE, 0.661) + 1.384 (SE, 0.021) × FE<sub>NO</sub> (NIOX VERO<sup>®</sup>). <i>Conclusions</i>: To our best knowledge, we have provided the first report showing that the measured FE<sub>NO</sub> level with the NIOX VERO<sup>®</sup> was approximately 30% lower than that with the NOA280i<sup>®</sup> and that there was a significant correlation between the measurements of these two devices. The correction equation that we provided may help assess the data obtained by these two analyzers. AbbreviationsATSAmerican Thoracic SocietyBMIBody mass indexERSEuropean Respiratory SocietyFE<sub>NO</sub>Fractional exhaled nitric oxideGINAGlobal Initiative for AsthmaNONitric oxideppbParts per billionROCReceiver operating characteristicSDStandard deviation American Thoracic Society Body mass index European Respiratory Society Fractional exhaled nitric oxide Global Initiative for Asthma Nitric oxide Parts per billion Receiver operating characteristic Standard deviation