4.5 Article

Lung function testing in the elderly -: Can we still use FEV1/FVC<70% as a criterion of COPD?

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 101, 期 6, 页码 1097-1105

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2006.11.019

关键词

COPD; dyspnoea; elderly; FEV1/FVC ratio; lung function; spirometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be diagnosed when the FEV1/FVC ratio is below 70%, according to global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease (GOLD). COPD is known as a disease which is frequently under-diagnosed. However, there is a risk of over diagnosis when this diagnostic threshold is applied among the elderly. Aims: To contribute to the discussion about the criteria for diagnosing COPD, by describing lung function and pulmonary symptoms in a population aged 60 years or more, and in particular the changes in the mean and 5% percentile of the FEV1/FVC ratio by increasing age. Methods: A cross sectional population-based study was performed in the city of Tromso, Norway, in 2001-2002. Spirometry was performed in 4102 people 60 years and older (54.6% women), who also filled in a questionnaire. Results: Decreased FEV1% predicted and FEV1/FVC ratio were associated with smoking, increasing age, and reported pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases. Dyspnoea and coughing were also strongly associated with smoking and reported pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases, but coughing did not become more frequent by increasing age. In never smokers aged 60-69 years the frequency of FEV1/FVC ratio < 70% was approximately 7% compared to 16-18% in those 70 years or more (p < 0.001). FEV1/FVC ratio < 70% among never smokers aged 60-69 years was just as frequent as FEV1/FVC ratio < 65% in never smokers older than 70 years. Conclusion: Adjustments of the GOLD criteria for diagnosing COPD are needed, and FEV, FVC ratios down to 65% should be regarded as normal when aged 70 years and older. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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