Dataset Information

Breath Analysis: Comparison among Methodological Approaches for Breath Sampling.

ABSTRACT: Despite promising results obtained in the early diagnosis of several pathologies, breath analysis still remains an unused technique in clinical practice due to the lack of breath sampling standardized procedures able to guarantee a good repeatability and comparability of results. The most diffuse on an international scale breath sampling method uses polymeric bags, but, recently, devices named Mistral and ReCIVA, able to directly concentrate volatile organic compounds (VOCs) onto sorbent tubes, have been developed and launched on the market. In order to explore performances of these new automatic devices with respect to sampling in the polymeric bag and to study the differences in VOCs profile when whole or alveolar breath is collected and when pulmonary wash out with clean air is done, a tailored experimental design was developed. Three different breath sampling approaches were compared: (a) whole breath sampling by means of Tedlar bags, (b) the end-tidal breath collection using the Mistral sampler, and (c) the simultaneous collection of the whole and alveolar breath by using the ReCIVA. The obtained results showed that alveolar fraction of breath was relatively less affected by ambient air (AA) contaminants (p-values equal to 0.04 for Mistral and 0.002 for ReCIVA Low) with respect to whole breath (p-values equal to 0.97 for ReCIVA Whole). Compared to Tedlar bags, coherent results were obtained by using Mistral while lower VOCs levels were detected for samples (both breath and AA) collected by ReCIVA, likely due to uncorrected and fluctuating flow rates applied by this device. Finally, the analysis of all data also including data obtained by explorative analysis of the unique lung cancer (LC) breath sample showed that a clean air supply might determine a further confounding factor in breath analysis considering that lung wash-out is species-dependent.

SUBMITTER: Di Gilio A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7763204 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Breath Analysis: Comparison among Methodological Approaches for Breath Sampling.

Di Gilio Alessia A Palmisani Jolanda J Ventrella Gianrocco G Facchini Laura L Catino Annamaria A Varesano Niccolò N Pizzutilo Pamela P Galetta Domenico D Borelli Massimo M Barbieri Pierluigi P Licen Sabina S de Gennaro Gianluigi G

Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) 20201210 24

Despite promising results obtained in the early diagnosis of several pathologies, breath analysis still remains an unused technique in clinical practice due to the lack of breath sampling standardized procedures able to guarantee a good repeatability and comparability of results. The most diffuse on an international scale breath sampling method uses polymeric bags, but, recently, devices named Mistral and ReCIVA, able to directly concentrate volatile organic compounds (VOCs) onto sorbent tubes, ...[more]

PMID: 33321824

Similar Datasets

Project description:The BIOMED I programme Stable Isotopes in Gastroenterology and Nutrition (SIGN) has focused upon evaluation and standardisation of stable isotope breath tests using 13C labelled substrates. The programme dealt with comparison of 13C substrates, test meals, test conditions, analysis techniques, and calculation procedures. Analytical techniques applied for 13CO2 analysis were evaluated by taking an inventory of instrumentation, calibration protocols, and analysis procedures. Two ring tests were initiated measuring 13C abundances of carbonate materials. Evaluating the data it was found that seven different models of isotope ratio mass spectrometers (IRMS) were used by the participants applying both the dual inlet system and the continuous flow configuration. Eight different brands of certified 13C reference materials were used with a 13C abundance varying from delta 13CPDB -37.2 to +2.0/1000. CO2 was liberated from certified material by three techniques and different working standards were used varying from -47.4 to +0.4/1000 in their delta 13CPDB value. The standard deviations (SDs) found for all measurements by all participants were 0.25/1000 and 0.50/1000 for two carbonates used in the ring tests. The individual variation for the single participants varied from 0.02 /1000 (dual inlet system) to 0.14/1000 (continuous flow system). The measurement of the difference between two carbonates showed a SD of 0.33/1000 calculated for all participants. Internal precision of IRMS as indicated by the specifications of the different instrument suppliers is < 0.3/1000 for continuous flow systems. In this respect it can be concluded that all participants are working well within the instrument specifications even including sample preparation. Increased overall interlaboratory variation is therefore likely to be due to non-instrumental conditions. It is possible that consistent differences in sample handling leading to isotope fractionation are the causes for interlaboratory variation. Breath analysis does not require sample preparation. As such, interlaboratory variation will be less than observed for the carbonate samples and within the range indicated as internal precision for continuous flow instruments. From this it is concluded that pure analytical interlaboratory variation is acceptable despite the many differences in instrumentation and analytical protocols. Coordinated metabolic studies appear possible, in which different European laboratories perform 13CO2 analysis. Evaluation of compatibility of the analytical systems remains advisable, however.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews are used widely to guide health care decisions. Several tools have been created to assess systematic review quality. The measurement tool for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews known as the AMSTAR tool applies a yes/no score to eleven relevant domains of review methodology. This tool has been reworked so that each domain is scored based on a four point scale, producing R-AMSTAR.Methods and findingsWe aimed to compare the AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR tools in assessing systematic reviews in the field of assisted reproduction for subfertility. All published systematic reviews on assisted reproductive technology, with the latest search for studies taking place from 2007-2011, were considered. Reviews that contained no included studies or considered diagnostic outcomes were excluded. Thirty each of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews were randomly selected from a search of relevant databases. Both tools were then applied to all sixty reviews. The results were converted to percentage scores and all reviews graded and ranked based on this. AMSTAR produced a much wider variation in percentage scores and achieved higher inter-rater reliability than R-AMSTAR according to kappa statistics. The average rating for Cochrane reviews was consistent between the two tools (88.3% for R-AMSTAR versus 83.6% for AMSTAR) but inconsistent for non-Cochrane reviews (63.9% R-AMSTAR vs. 38.5% AMSTAR). In comparing the rankings generated between the two tools Cochrane reviews changed an average of 4.2 places, compared to 2.9 for non-Cochrane.ConclusionR-AMSTAR provided greater guidance in the assessment of domains and produced quantitative results. However, there were many problems with the construction of its criteria and AMSTAR was much easier to apply consistently. We recommend that AMSTAR incorporates the findings of this study and produces additional guidance for its application in order to improve its reliability and usefulness.

Project description:Monitoring the drug susceptibility of Leishmania isolates still largely relies on standard in vitro cell-based susceptibility assays using (patient-isolated) promastigotes for infection. Although this assay is widely used, no fully standardized/harmonized protocol is yet available hence resulting in the application of a wide variety of host cells (primary cells and cell lines), different drug exposure times, detection methods and endpoint criteria. Advocacy for standardization to decrease inter-laboratory variation and improve interpretation of results has already repeatedly been made, unfortunately still with unsatisfactory progress. As a logical next step, it would be useful to reach at least some agreement on the type of host cell and basic experimental design for routine amastigote susceptibility determination. The present laboratory study using different L. infantum strains as a model for visceral leishmaniasis species compared primary cells (mouse peritoneal exudate (PEC), mouse bone marrow derived macrophages and human peripheral blood monocyte derived macrophages) and commercially available cell lines (THP-1, J774, RAW) for either their susceptibility to infection, their role in supporting intracellular amastigote multiplication and overall feasibility/accessibility of experimental assay protocol. The major findings were that primary cells are better than cell lines in supporting infection and intracellular parasite multiplication, with PECs to be preferred for technical reasons. Cell lines require drug exposure of >96h with THP-1 to be preferred but subject to a variable response to PMA stimulation. The fast dividing J774 and RAW cells out-compete parasite-infected cells precluding proper assay read-out. Some findings could possibly also be applicable to cutaneous Leishmania strains, but this still needs cross-checking. Besides inherent limitations in a clinical setting, susceptibility testing of clinical isolates may remain problematic because of the reliance on patient-derived promastigotes which may exhibit variable degrees of metacyclogenesis and infectivity.

Project description:Sampling the concentration of insulin in human skin using microdialysis is challenging because of low intracutaneous concentrations and low recovery, presumably due to adsorption of insulin to the microdialysis system. In this study, we aimed to (1) measure how the concentration of insulin varies in three different tissue compartments (intracutaneous, subcutaneous and intravenous) and (2) to study how much insulin is adsorbed to the microdialysis catheter membranes and tubing during a typical microdialysis experiment, both in vivo and in vitro. We hypothesized that (1) the concentration of insulin decreases from the intravenous compartment to the intracutaneous and subcutaneous tissue, and that (2) adsorption of insulin to the microdialysis membrane and tubing impairs the recovery of insulin from the tissue. In this experimental study, microdialysis catheters were inserted intracutaneously, subcutaneously and intravenously in 11 healthy subjects. Systemic endogenous hyperinsulinemia was induced by intake of an oral glucose load. Insulin concentration was measured in the dialysate and in the extracted samples from the catheter membrane and tubings. In vitro microdialysis was performed to investigate the temporal resolution of the adsorption. After an oral glucose load insulin concentration increased intravenously, but not in the intracutaneous or subcutaneous compartments, while glucose, lactate and pyruvate concentrations increased in all compartments. The adsorption of insulin to the microdialysis membrane in vivo was highest in the intravenous compartment (p = 0.01), compared to the intracutaneous and subcutaneous compartments. In vitro, the adsorption to the microdialysis membrane was highest one hour after sampling, then the concentration gradually decreased after three and five hours of sampling. The concentration of insulin in peripheral tissues is low, probably due to decreasing tissue vascularity. Adsorption of insulin to the microdialysis membrane is modest but time-dependent. This finding highlights the importance of a stabilization time for the microdialysis system before sampling tissue analytes.

Dataset Information

Breath Analysis: Comparison among Methodological Approaches for Breath Sampling.

Publications

Breath Analysis: Comparison among Methodological Approaches for Breath Sampling.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets