4.6 Article

Pseudomonas infection and mucociliary and absorptive clearance in the cystic fibrosis lung

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 47, Issue 5, Pages 1392-1401

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01880-2015

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01 HL108929, P30 DK072506]
  2. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Research Development Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Airway surface liquid hyperabsorption and mucus accumulation are key elements of cystic fibrosis lung disease that can be assessed in vivo using functional imaging methods. In this study we evaluated experimental factors affecting measurements of mucociliary clearance (MCC) and small-molecule absorption (ABS) and patient factors associated with abnormal absorption and mucus clearance. Our imaging technique utilises two radiopharmaceutical probes delivered by inhalation. Measurement repeatability was assessed in 10 adult cystic fibrosis subjects. Experimental factors were assessed in 29 adult and paediatric cystic fibrosis subjects (51 scans). Patient factors were assessed in a subgroup with optimal aerosol deposition (37 scans; 24 subjects). Paediatric subjects (n=9) underwent initial and 2-year follow-up scans. Control subjects from a previously reported study are included for comparison. High rates of central aerosol deposition influenced measurements of ABS and, to a lesser extent, MCC. Depressed MCC in cystic fibrosis was only detectable in subjects with previous Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. Cystic fibrosis subjects without P. aeruginosa had similar MCC to control subjects. Cystic fibrosis subjects had consistently higher ABS rates. We conclude that the primary experimental factor affecting MCC/ABS measurements is central deposition percentage. Depressed MCC in cystic fibrosis is associated with P. aeruginosa infection. ABS is consistently increased in cystic fibrosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available