| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
|
|
|
|||||||
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password |
|||||||||
1 From INSERM U 296 et Service de Physiologie, Explorations Fonctionnelles, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
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 Pernazene. 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.
Key Words: active posterior rhinometry • nasal airflow resistance • nasal mechanical dilator device • topical decongestant
Submitted on July 25, 1997
Accepted on December 10, 1997
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G L Hall, Z Hantos, J H Wildhaber, and P D Sly Contribution of nasal pathways to low frequency respiratory impedance in infants Thorax, May 1, 2002; 57(5): 396 - 399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. M. Lorino, M. P. d'Ortho, E. Dahan, O. Bignani, C. Vastel, and H. Lorino Combined Effects of a Nasal Dilator and Nasal Prongs on Nasal Airflow Resistance Chest, August 1, 2001; 120(2): 397 - 401. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. E. Goetz, M. Manohar, A. S. Hassan, and G. J. Baker Nasal strips do not affect pulmonary gas exchange, anaerobic metabolism, or EIPH in exercising Thoroughbreds J Appl Physiol, June 1, 2001; 90(6): 2378 - 2385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Gehring, S. R. Garlick, J. R. Wheatley, and T. C. Amis Nasal resistance and flow resistive work of nasal breathing during exercise: effects of a nasal dilator strip J Appl Physiol, September 1, 2000; 89(3): 1114 - 1122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Schonhofer, K. A. Franklin, H. Brunig, H. Wehde, and D. Kohler Effect of Nasal-Valve Dilation on Obstructive Sleep Apnea Chest, September 1, 2000; 118(3): 587 - 590. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.-M. Lorino, H. Lorino, E. Dahan, M. P. d'Ortho, A. Coste, A. Harf, and F. Lofaso Effects of Nasal Prongs on Nasal Airflow Resistance Chest, August 1, 2000; 118(2): 366 - 371. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.-M. Lorino, F. Lofaso, E. Dahan, A. Coste, A. Harf, and H. Lorino Combined Effects of a Mechanical Nasal Dilator and a Topical Decongestant on Nasal Airflow Resistance Chest, June 1, 1999; 115(6): 1514 - 1518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. C. Amis, J. P. Kirkness, E. di Somma, and J. R. Wheatley Nasal vestibule wall elasticity: interactions with a nasal dilator strip J Appl Physiol, May 1, 1999; 86(5): 1638 - 1643. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
