4.5 Article

Differentiation between the sensory and affective aspects of histamine-induced bronchoconstriction in asthma

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 101, 期 5, 页码 925-932

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2006.09.018

关键词

asthma; dyspnea; emotion; histamine; symptom perception

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Respiratory symptom perception research has focused mainly on respiratory sensations. Because dyspnea is multidimensional, affective aspects should be investigated. Patients with asthma (N = 25) underwent a histamine provocation until a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). After each dose level, 6 symptoms of dyspnea intensity and 6 symptoms of dyspnea affectivity were rated. Individual perceptual sensitivity was determined by calculating the linear slope between the fat[ in FEV, and the increase in the total symptom score, and for affective and sensory symptoms separately [Bijl-Hofland, Folgering, van den Hoogen, et at. Perception of bronchoconstriction in asthma patients measured during histamine challenge test. Eur Respir J 1999; 14:1049-54]. Trait anxiety, baseline state anxiety, daily asthma symptoms and catastrophizing during an asthma exacerbation were also assessed. Sensitivity was unrelated to physiological indices of disease severity (i.e., baseline FEV, and histamine dose level at 20% fall in FEV1), whereas it was positively related to trait anxiety, state anxiety, daily asthma symptoms and catastrophic thinking during an asthma exacerbation in daily life. These relationships were overall much stronger for affective than for sensory symptom slopes. In stepwise multiple regressions, state anxiety was the best predictor of the affective symptom slopes, whereas catastrophic thinking during an asthma exacerbation was the best predictor for the sensory symptom slopes. The differentiation between sensory and affective components of dyspnea adds to the understanding of respiratory symptom perception in asthma. (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