A comparison of sputum induction methods: ultrasonic vs compressed-air nebulizer and hypertonic vs isotonic saline inhalation

Airway inflammation can be demonstrated by the modem method of sputum induction using ultrasonic nebulizer and hypertonic saline. We studied whether compressed-air nebulizer and isotonic saline which are commonly available and cost less, are as effective in inducing sputum in normal adult subjects as the above mentioned tools. Sixteen subjects underwent weekly sputum induction in the following manner: ultrasonic nebulizer (Medix Sonix 2000, Clement Clarke, UK) using hypertonic saline, ultrasonic nebulizer using isotonic saline, compressed-air nebulizer (BestNeb, Taiwan) using hypertonic saline, and compressed-air nebulizer using isotonic saline. Overall, the use of an ultrasonic nebulizer and hypertonic saline yielded significantly higher total sputum cell counts and a higher percentage of cell viability than compressed-air nebulizers and isotonic saline. With the latter, there was a trend towards squamous cell contaminations. The proportion of various sputum cell types was not significantly different between the groups, and the reproducibility in sputum macrophages and neutrophils was high (Intraclass correlation coefficient, r [95%CI]: 0.65 [0.30-0.91] and 0.58 [0.22-0.89], p < 0.001). Overall changes in median FEV, were small and comparable between all groups. Induction using ultrasonic nebulizers together with hypertonic saline was generally less well tolerated than compressed-air nebulizers and isotonic saline. We conclude that in normal subjects, although both nebulizers and saline types can induce sputum with reproducible cellular profile, ultrasonic nebulizers and hypertonic saline are more effective but less well tolerated.