HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password

This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Article Archive Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (9) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Allen, N. D. Articles by Cockcroft, D. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Allen, N. D. Articles by Cockcroft, D. W.

Difference Between Dosimeter and Tidal Breathing Methacholine Challenge^*

Contributions of Dose and Deep Inspiration Bronchoprotection

^* From Departments of Physiology (Mr. Allen) and Medicine (Dr. Cockcroft, Ms. Davis, and Mr. Hurst), Royal University Hospital, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.

Correspondence to: Donald W. Cockcroft, MD, Royal University Hospital, Department of Medicine, Division of Respirology, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, 103 Hospital Dr, Ellis Hall, Room 551, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 0W8 Canada; e-mail: cockcroft{at}sask.usask.ca

Background: Two bronchoprovocation methods are widely used. Compared to the tidal breathing method, the dosimeter method delivers approximately half the dose and involves five deep inhalations. Both the lower dose and the bronchoprotective deep inhalations contribute to the lesser airway response of the dosimeter.

Objective: To determine the relative role of dose and deep inspiration in the difference between the two methods.

Methods: Subjects with asthma (n = 24) underwent three methacholine challenges: a dosimeter challenge, a 2-min tidal breathing challenge (twice the dose), and a modified 2-min tidal breathing challenge (twice the dose plus five deep inhalations).

Results: The dosimeter method produced a nonsignificantly lower response than the modified tidal breathing method (p = 0.14). Both deep inhalation methods produced significantly less response than did the standard tidal breathing method (p = 0.011). In the 12 subjects with the most mild airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), the differences between the deep inhalation method and the tidal breathing method were greater (p = 0.007). By contrast, deep inhalations produced no effect in the 12 subjects with greater AHR; the two tidal breathing methods produced identical results, while the dosimeter produced less response than either (p = 0.033). Six current asthmatics with mild airway responsiveness (tidal breathing method) had negative dosimeter methacholine challenge results.

Conclusions: In subjects with moderate airway responsiveness, the difference between the methods is due to the difference in dose, whereas in subjects with mild AHR, deep inhalations had a large effect overwhelming the dose effect and producing false-negative methacholine challenge results in 25% of the subjects.

Key Words: airway responsiveness • deep inspiration • dosimeter • methacholine • tidal breathing method

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Prieto, I. Reig, R. Rojas, A. Ferrer, and J. Domenech The effect of challenge method on sensitivity and reactivity to adenosine 5'-monophosphate in subjects with suspected asthma. Chest, November 1, 2006; 130(5): 1448 - 1453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]