RESEARCH PAPER
Effect of the nasal cycle on congestive response during bilateral nasal allergen provocation
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Otolaryngology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
2
Department of Prevention of Environmental Hazards and Allergology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
3
Institute of Electronics Systems, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Tomasz Gotlib   

Department of Otolaryngology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
 
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2014;21(2):290–293
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Bilateral nasal allergen provocation usually produces more pronounced obstruction of one nasal passage. It was found that this could be related to the stage of the nasal cycle before the provocation.

Objective:
To discover whether the stage of the nasal cycle is decisive for asymmetry in congestive response observed during bilateral allergen nasal provocation.

Material and Methods:
Two bilateral nasal allergen provocations were performed in a group of 26 pollen-sensitive volunteers. Acoustic rhinometry measurements were taken during the nasal cycle, and then after the provocation. A cross-sectional area at the level of the inferior turbinate (CSA-2) was measured. Consecutive challenges were performed in the opposite phase of the nasal cycle: the side which had been wide just before the first challenge, was narrow before the second provocation.

Results:
Asymmetry in CSA-2 reduction between the nasal passages was observed in most cases. Significant difference was observed between mean CSA-2 reduction rate (reactivity) of the side that responded with greater congestion, and the opposite side. No significant difference was found in mean CSA-2 reduction rate between the side which was narrow, and the side which was wide before provocation.

Conclusions:
Asymmetry of congestive response during bilateral nasal allergen provocation is not dependent on the stage of the nasal cycle preceding the challenge.

 
REFERENCES (17)
1.
Malm L, Gerth van Wijk R, Bachert C. Guidelines for nasal provocations with aspects on nasal patency, airflow, and airflow resistance. International Committee on Objective Assessment of the Nasal Airways. International Rhinologic Society. Rhinology 2000; 38(1): 1–6.
 
2.
Ganslmayer M, Spertini F, Rahm F, Terrien MH, Mosimann B, Leimgruber A. Evaluation of acoustic rhinometry in a nasal provocation test with allergen. Allergy 1999; 54(9): 974–979.
 
3.
Samoliński B. Acoustic Rhinometryfor the purposes of rhino-allergological diagnosis: Analysis of the results. Scholar, Warsaw 1998.
 
4.
Brooks C, Karl K, Francom S. Unilaterality of obstruction after acute nasal allergen provocation. Relation of allergen dose, nasal reactivity and the nasal cycle. Clin Exp Allergy. 1991; 21(5): 583–587.
 
5.
Jin. KK, Jae HC, Hyun JJ, Dae BS, Hyang AS The effect of allergen provocation on the nasal cycle estimated by acoustic rhinometry. Acta Otolaryngol. 2006; 126(4): 390–395.
 
6.
Kayser R. Die exacte Messung der Luftdurchgangigkeit der nase. Archives der Laryngologie und Rhinologie 1895; 3: 101–102.
 
7.
Gilbert AN, Rosenwasser AM. Biological rhythmicity of nasal airway patency: a re-examination of the ‚nasal cycle‘. Acta Otolaryngol. 1987; 104(1–2): 180–186.
 
8.
Gungor A, Moinuddin R, Nelson RH, Corey JP, Detection of the nasal cycle with acoustic rhinometry: techniques and applications. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999; 120(2): 238–247.
 
9.
Scadding GK, Darby YC, Austin CE. Acoustic rhinometry compared with anterior rhinomanometry in the assessment of the response to nasal allergen challenge. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1994; 19(5): 451–454.
 
10.
Ganslmayer M, Spertini F, Rahm F, Terrien MH, Mosimann B, Leimgruber A. Evaluation of acoustic rhinometry in a nasal provocation test with allergen. Allergy 1999; 54(9): 974–97.
 
11.
Gotlib T, Samoliński B, Grzanka A. Bilateral nasal allergen provocation monitored with acoustic rhinometry. Assessment of both nasal passages and the side reacting with greater congestion: relation to the nasal cycle. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 2005; 35: 313–318.
 
12.
Clement PAR, Gordts F. Consensus report on acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry. Rhinology 2005; 43(3): 169–179.
 
13.
Morgan NJ, MacGregor FB, Birchall MA, Lund VJ, Sittampalam Y. Racial differences in nasal fossa dimensions determined by acoustic rhinometry. Rhinology 1995; 33(4): 224–228.
 
14.
Ohki M, Naito K, Cole P. Dimensions and resistances of human nose: racial differences. Laryngoscope 1991; 101(3): 276–278.
 
15.
Gotlib T, Samoliński B, Grzanka A, Szczęsnowicz-Dąbrowska P: The influence of the stage of the nasal cycle on the result of nasal allergen provocation. Alergia Astma Immunologia 2005; 10(2): 90–94.
 
16.
Wang D, Clement P. Assessment of early- and late-phase nasal obstruction in atopic patients after nasal allergen challenge Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1995; 20(4): 368–373.
 
17.
Zambietti G, Moresi M, Romero R, Filiaci F. Study and application of a mathematical model for the provisional assessment of areas and nasal resistance, obtained using acoustic rhinometry and active anterior rhinomanometry. Clin Otolaryngol. 2001; 26: 286–293.
 
eISSN:1898-2263
ISSN:1232-1966