4.6 Article

Clinical Analysis and Risk Factors of Bronchiolitis Obliterans After Mycoplasma Pneumoniae Pneumonia

期刊

INFECTION AND DRUG RESISTANCE
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S372940

关键词

children; bronchiolitis obliterans; mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia; post-infectious bronchiolitis obliterans; risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the clinical characteristics and risk factors of bronchiolitis obliterans (BO) after severe mycoplasma pneumoniae (MP) pneumonia is important for improving prognosis. This study found that higher levels of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and hypoxemia are independent risk factors for BO after severe MP pneumonia.
Purpose: Severe mycoplasma pneumoniae (MP) pneumonia can cause bronchiolitis obliterans (BO). In order to improve the prognosis of BO, it is necessary to grasp the clinical characteristics and risk factors of BO after severe MP pneumonia and intervene as soon as possible.Patients and Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 110 patients with severe MP pneumonia, and divided them into BO group (22 cases) and non-BO group (88 cases). The clinical characteristics of BO group were analyzed, and the clinical data of two groups were compared to identify the risk factors of BO.Results: At the time of diagnosis, all BO patients had symptoms of cough and wheezing, and 10 (45.45%) had decreased exercise intolerance. Lung function showed moderate to severe obstructive ventilatory dysfunction, high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) showed mosaic perfusion patterns. Multivariate binomial regression analysis showed that higher levels of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and hypoxemia were independent risk factors for BO after severe MP pneumonia.Conclusion: Higher levels of serum LDH and hypoxemia were independent risk factors for BO after severe MP pneumonia. For patients with risk factors, clinicians should regular follow-up for early diagnosis and intervention of BO.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据