3.8 Article

Investigation of bronchiectasis in severe uncontrolled asthma

期刊

CLINICAL RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 1212-1218

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/crj.12653

关键词

antibiotics; asthma; bronchiectasis; exacerbation; pathogens; sputum

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IntroductionThe presence of bronchiectasis in patients with asthma varies in different reports, while a clear aetiological relation has not been precisely established. ObjectivesTo investigate the presence of bronchiectasis in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma and examine whether they contribute to the severity of asthma. MethodsPatients with severe asthma were prospectively recruited. HRCT of the chest was performed to identify and grade bronchiectasis using the Smith' radiology scale. Investigation of the underlying cause was carried out for patients with bronchiectasis in order to exclude aetiologies other than asthma. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 21, was used. ResultsForty patients were studied, 28 women, mean age (SD) 57.9 years (+/- 12.4). Mean ACT score was 14.2(+/- 4.9). Main symptoms were: wheezing (95%), cough (92%), dysponea (92%) and sputum production (72%). Mean duration of asthma was 16.5(+/- 11.5) years, exacerbations: 4.4(+/- 2.7)/year. In 27 patients (67.5%) bronchiectasis was diagnosed. In nine patients (22.5%) pathogens were cultured in sputum (mainly Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Haemophilus influenzae). Patients with sputum production and pathogens in sputum cultures had a higher Smith score compared to those without expectoration and without pathogens, respectively (P=.005, P<.0001). No correlation was found between the extent of bronchiectasis and lung function. The radiological severity of bronchiectasis was correlated with the antibiotic courses/year (P=.002). ConclusionBronchiectasis is common in patients with severe asthma. Sputum production and pathogen isolation in sputum may indicate the presence of bronchiectasis which seems to contribute to the severity of asthma.

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

3.8
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