Jornal de Pediatria (Apr 2010)

Comparação entre o método clássico de Gibson e Cooke e o teste da condutividade no suor em pacientes com e sem fibrose cística Comparison between classic Gibson and Cooke technique and sweat conductivity test in patients with and without cystic fibrosis

  • Ana C. V. Mattar,
  • Eduardo N. Gomes,
  • Fabíola V. Adde,
  • Claudio Leone,
  • Joaquim C. Rodrigues

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0021-75572010000200005
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 86, no. 2
pp. 109 – 114

Abstract

Read online

OBJETIVO: Comparar os valores de cloro no suor obtidos pelo teste quantitativo da iontoforese pela pilocarpina (teste clássico) com os valores de condutividade no suor obtidos pelo sistema de coleta por Macroduct® em pacientes com e sem fibrose cística (FC). O custo e tempo despendidos na execução de cada teste foram também analisados. MÉTODOS: O teste do suor pelas duas técnicas foi realizado simultaneamente, em pacientes com e sem FC. Os pontos de corte para a condutividade para excluir ou diagnosticar FC foram 90 mmol/L, respectivamente, e, para o teste clássico, cloro 60 mmol/L. RESULTADOS: Cinquenta e dois pacientes com FC (29 do sexo masculino e 23 do sexo feminino; de 1,5 a 18,2 anos) realizaram o teste do suor pelas duas técnicas, apresentando valores medianos de cloro e condutividade no suor de 114 e 122 mmol/L, respectivamente. Em todos eles, a condutividade foi > 95 mmol/L, o que conferiu ao teste 100% de sensibilidade (IC95% 93,1-100). Cinquenta pacientes sem FC (24 do sexo masculino e 26 do sexo feminino; de 0,5 a 12,5 anos) apresentaram valores medianos de cloro e condutividade no suor de 15,5 e 30 mmol/L, respectivamente. Em todos os casos, a condutividade foi OBJECTIVE: To compare sweat chloride values obtained by quantitative pilocarpine iontophoresis (classic test) with the sweat conductivity values obtained using Macroduct® collection system in patients with and without cystic fibrosis (CF). The cost and time spent to carry out each test were also analyzed. METHODS: The sweat test using both techniques was performed at the same time in patients with and without CF. Conductivity cutoff values to rule out or diagnose CF were 90 mmol/L, respectively, and for the classic test the chloride values were 60 mmol/L. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients with CF (29 males and 23 females; aged from 1.5 to 18.2 years) underwent the sweat test using both techniques, showing median sweat chloride and conductivity values of 114 and 122 mmol/L, respectively. In all of them, conductivity was > 95 mmol/L, which provided the test with 100% sensitivity (95%CI 93.1-100). Fifty patients without CF (24 males and 26 females; aged from 0.5 to 12.5 years) had median sweat chloride and conductivity values of 15.5 and 30 mmol/L, respectively. In all cases, conductivity was < 70 mmol/L, which provided the test with 100% specificity (95%CI 92.9-100). Time spent to perform the tests was significantly shorter for the conductivity test, and its cost was also lower. CONCLUSIONS: The conductivity test showed high sensitivity and specificity, and there was good correspondence between the tests. The time spent to carry out the conductivity test was shorter and the cost was lower in comparison with the classic test.

Keywords