Background: Nasal obstruction is correlated with a decreased quality of life . An easy way to evaluate nasal patency is the peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) measurement. Normal PNIF values have been published by many authors. However, some authors evaluated volunteers in a sitting position, while others have measured PNIF values in standing volunteers. Body position has been shown to influence pulmonary function, with differences between sitting and upright positions. As nasal and pulmonary flows are strictly related, the present pilot study tried to establish whether PNIF/PEF changed with body position in adults. Methodology/Principal: PNIF and PEF were measured in sitting and standing positions with the order of testing randomized in 76 healthy volunteers, 30 male (40 ±16 years). Results: In the group as a whole between sitting and upright position, PEF was significantly different (p=0.009), while PNIF showed a trend towards a significant difference (p=0.10). Conclusions: The present study, although showing a generally positive effect of the standing position on PEF values, does not show a clear effect on PNIF.

Peak nasal inspiratory flow and peak expiratory flow. Upright and sitting values in an adult population

OTTAVIANO, GIANCARLO;SCARPA, BRUNO;MARTINI, ALESSANDRO;
2016

Abstract

Background: Nasal obstruction is correlated with a decreased quality of life . An easy way to evaluate nasal patency is the peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) measurement. Normal PNIF values have been published by many authors. However, some authors evaluated volunteers in a sitting position, while others have measured PNIF values in standing volunteers. Body position has been shown to influence pulmonary function, with differences between sitting and upright positions. As nasal and pulmonary flows are strictly related, the present pilot study tried to establish whether PNIF/PEF changed with body position in adults. Methodology/Principal: PNIF and PEF were measured in sitting and standing positions with the order of testing randomized in 76 healthy volunteers, 30 male (40 ±16 years). Results: In the group as a whole between sitting and upright position, PEF was significantly different (p=0.009), while PNIF showed a trend towards a significant difference (p=0.10). Conclusions: The present study, although showing a generally positive effect of the standing position on PEF values, does not show a clear effect on PNIF.
2016
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
manuscript_1426.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Published (publisher's version)
Licenza: Accesso libero
Dimensione 133.79 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
133.79 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3163943
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 9
  • Scopus 32
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 30
social impact