Peak nasal inspiratory flow and Wright peak flow

A comparison of their reproducibility

R. N. Enberg, Dennis Randall Ownby

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The measurement of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) is a rapid, convenient, and objective way to assess nasal patency. It is used much less commonly, however, than Wright Peak Flow (WPF), in part, because of concerns about its reproducibility. In order to compare the reproducibility of PNIF with WPF, we obtained multiple measurements of both flows in each of ten healthy, nonsmoking, trained subjects five times throughout the same day and daily throughout the same week. Mean PNIFs (L/min) were 140 immediately after arising, 170 at breakfast time, 183 at lunch time, 170 at dinner time, and 161 at bedtime. Corresponding mean WPFs were 528, 528, 535, 535, and 531 L/min. Peak nasal inspiratory flow coefficients of variation representing minute to minute, hour to hour, and day to day variation were 9.8, 13.5, and 9.7, respectively. Corresponding coefficients of variation with WPF, 2.4, 1.9, and 2.3, were significantly lower. Variability of PNIF and WPF did not increase with increased time spans, suggesting that variation in airway size is less important than variation in technique. Responses to intranasal oxymetazoline, as determined by changes in PNIF and changes in subjective assessments of nasal patency, were then evaluated in ten patients with nasal obstruction. These persons noted a mean subjective improvement of 68% (P = .0002) and demonstrated a mean objective improvement of 21% (P = .05). Posttreatment PNIFs of many individuals who reported substantial subjective improvement failed to exceed the expected variability of the test. This experience fails to demonstrate the utility of PNIF determinations for routine clinical use.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)371-374
Number of pages4
JournalAnnals of Allergy
Volume67
Issue number3
StatePublished - Jan 1 1991
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Nose
Oxymetazoline
Lunch
Nasal Obstruction
Breakfast
Meals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy

Cite this

Peak nasal inspiratory flow and Wright peak flow : A comparison of their reproducibility. / Enberg, R. N.; Ownby, Dennis Randall.

In: Annals of Allergy, Vol. 67, No. 3, 01.01.1991, p. 371-374.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{32145842d1574df0a079341b580ee6cf,
title = "Peak nasal inspiratory flow and Wright peak flow: A comparison of their reproducibility",
abstract = "The measurement of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) is a rapid, convenient, and objective way to assess nasal patency. It is used much less commonly, however, than Wright Peak Flow (WPF), in part, because of concerns about its reproducibility. In order to compare the reproducibility of PNIF with WPF, we obtained multiple measurements of both flows in each of ten healthy, nonsmoking, trained subjects five times throughout the same day and daily throughout the same week. Mean PNIFs (L/min) were 140 immediately after arising, 170 at breakfast time, 183 at lunch time, 170 at dinner time, and 161 at bedtime. Corresponding mean WPFs were 528, 528, 535, 535, and 531 L/min. Peak nasal inspiratory flow coefficients of variation representing minute to minute, hour to hour, and day to day variation were 9.8, 13.5, and 9.7, respectively. Corresponding coefficients of variation with WPF, 2.4, 1.9, and 2.3, were significantly lower. Variability of PNIF and WPF did not increase with increased time spans, suggesting that variation in airway size is less important than variation in technique. Responses to intranasal oxymetazoline, as determined by changes in PNIF and changes in subjective assessments of nasal patency, were then evaluated in ten patients with nasal obstruction. These persons noted a mean subjective improvement of 68{\%} (P = .0002) and demonstrated a mean objective improvement of 21{\%} (P = .05). Posttreatment PNIFs of many individuals who reported substantial subjective improvement failed to exceed the expected variability of the test. This experience fails to demonstrate the utility of PNIF determinations for routine clinical use.",
author = "Enberg, {R. N.} and Ownby, {Dennis Randall}",
year = "1991",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "67",
pages = "371--374",
journal = "Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology",
issn = "1081-1206",
publisher = "American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Peak nasal inspiratory flow and Wright peak flow

T2 - A comparison of their reproducibility

AU - Enberg, R. N.

AU - Ownby, Dennis Randall

PY - 1991/1/1

Y1 - 1991/1/1

N2 - The measurement of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) is a rapid, convenient, and objective way to assess nasal patency. It is used much less commonly, however, than Wright Peak Flow (WPF), in part, because of concerns about its reproducibility. In order to compare the reproducibility of PNIF with WPF, we obtained multiple measurements of both flows in each of ten healthy, nonsmoking, trained subjects five times throughout the same day and daily throughout the same week. Mean PNIFs (L/min) were 140 immediately after arising, 170 at breakfast time, 183 at lunch time, 170 at dinner time, and 161 at bedtime. Corresponding mean WPFs were 528, 528, 535, 535, and 531 L/min. Peak nasal inspiratory flow coefficients of variation representing minute to minute, hour to hour, and day to day variation were 9.8, 13.5, and 9.7, respectively. Corresponding coefficients of variation with WPF, 2.4, 1.9, and 2.3, were significantly lower. Variability of PNIF and WPF did not increase with increased time spans, suggesting that variation in airway size is less important than variation in technique. Responses to intranasal oxymetazoline, as determined by changes in PNIF and changes in subjective assessments of nasal patency, were then evaluated in ten patients with nasal obstruction. These persons noted a mean subjective improvement of 68% (P = .0002) and demonstrated a mean objective improvement of 21% (P = .05). Posttreatment PNIFs of many individuals who reported substantial subjective improvement failed to exceed the expected variability of the test. This experience fails to demonstrate the utility of PNIF determinations for routine clinical use.

AB - The measurement of peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) is a rapid, convenient, and objective way to assess nasal patency. It is used much less commonly, however, than Wright Peak Flow (WPF), in part, because of concerns about its reproducibility. In order to compare the reproducibility of PNIF with WPF, we obtained multiple measurements of both flows in each of ten healthy, nonsmoking, trained subjects five times throughout the same day and daily throughout the same week. Mean PNIFs (L/min) were 140 immediately after arising, 170 at breakfast time, 183 at lunch time, 170 at dinner time, and 161 at bedtime. Corresponding mean WPFs were 528, 528, 535, 535, and 531 L/min. Peak nasal inspiratory flow coefficients of variation representing minute to minute, hour to hour, and day to day variation were 9.8, 13.5, and 9.7, respectively. Corresponding coefficients of variation with WPF, 2.4, 1.9, and 2.3, were significantly lower. Variability of PNIF and WPF did not increase with increased time spans, suggesting that variation in airway size is less important than variation in technique. Responses to intranasal oxymetazoline, as determined by changes in PNIF and changes in subjective assessments of nasal patency, were then evaluated in ten patients with nasal obstruction. These persons noted a mean subjective improvement of 68% (P = .0002) and demonstrated a mean objective improvement of 21% (P = .05). Posttreatment PNIFs of many individuals who reported substantial subjective improvement failed to exceed the expected variability of the test. This experience fails to demonstrate the utility of PNIF determinations for routine clinical use.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025943006&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025943006&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 67

SP - 371

EP - 374

JO - Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

JF - Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

SN - 1081-1206

IS - 3

ER -