4.6 Article

Factors associated with poor pulmonary function: cross-sectional analysis of data from the ERCF

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages 298-305

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.01.00068901

Keywords

cystic fibrosis; pulmonary function; registry; respiratory function tests

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The European Epidemiologic Registry of Cystic Fibrosis began collecting longitudinal data on European cystic fibrosis patients in 1994. A cross-sectional analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with low values of % predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) upon patient enrolment. Data from 7,010 patients aged greater than or equal to6 yrs were included. Clinical conditions, microbiological isolates and medications reported at enrolment or within the following 180 days were analysed for age-specific associations. Factors associated with FEV(1) that were lower by > 10% of pred values were: lower weight for age percentiles, haemoptysis, pneumothorax, pulmonary symptoms at presentation, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Burkholderia cepacia, oral corticosteroids, nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs, dornase alfa, oxygen and assisted ventilation and, in patients > 12 yrs old only, use of airway clearance techniques, inhaled bronchodilators, oral nutritional supplements, pancreatic enzymes and insulin or oral hypoglyeaemics. Slightly impaired lung function (5-10%) was associated with: diabetes (greater than or equal to 18-yrs-old), gastro-oesophageal reflux, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, asthma-like symptoms, portal hypertension, Aspergillus spp. and Candida spp. Sex, Haemophilus influenzae and Staphylococcus aureus were not associated with impaired pulmonary status. Regular exercise (especially in older patients) and nasal polyposis were associated with slightly better FEV(1). The results confirm those of previous studies and suggest selective prescribing in sicker patients.

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