Diagnostic Value Of Exhaled Breath Analysis In Tuberculosis

Established methodological issues in electronic nose research: how far are we from using these instruments in clinical settings of breath analysis?

“…The analysis of air exhaled through the nasal airways by a colorimetric sensor could discriminate patients with chronic bacterial rhinosinusitis from control subjects with a classification accuracy of 90% [140]. Patients with pulmonary tuberculosis could be distinguished from healthy controls based on exhaled breath e-nose analysis with 72% specificity and 84% sensitivity by Cyranose 320 [141] and 89% specificity and 88% sensitivity by nanoarray [49]. The Cyranose 320 could diagnose invasive aspergillosis in prolonged chemotherapyinduced neutropenia with the cross-validated accuracy of 90% (sensitivity: 100%; specificity: 83%) [88].…”

Breath analysis by two-dimensional gas chromatography with dual flame ionisation and mass spectrometric detection – Method optimisation and integration within a large-scale clinical study

“…Breath samples were collected using the ReCIVA breath sampler device (Owlstone Ltd, Cambridge) [ 17 ]. The device comprised of a handheld unit; a disposable face mask; up to four sorbent tubes held within four ports located above two pumps and pressure sensors (Fig.…”

Identification and Antibiotic‐Susceptibility Profiling of Infectious Bacterial Agents: A Review of Current and Future Trends

“…[ 113 ] In vivo studies, it discriminated the VOCs of exhaled breath from patients infected by M. tuberculosis, from control VOCs, with 72% specificity and 84% sensitivity. [ 114 ] Its use was extended to diagnosis of VAP with good results[ 115 – 117 ] if compared with another device, the DiagNose (C-it, Zutphen) which lacked sensitivity and specificity. [ 118 ] It also discriminated the VOCs from patients with pneumonia, from the VOCs of healthy controls, with 100% accuracy.…”

“…The Cyranose (Smiths Detection) was used for the detection of S. aureus, S. pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae , and P. aeruginosa in the upper respiratory tract and was able to distinguish between control and positive samples . In vivo studies, it discriminated the VOCs of exhaled breath from patients infected by M. tuberculosis, from control VOCs, with 72% specificity and 84% sensitivity . Its use was extended to diagnosis of VAP with good results if compared with another device, the DiagNose (C‐it, Zutphen) which lacked sensitivity and specificity .…”