4.6 Article

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

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 298-305

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.01.00068901

关键词

cystic fibrosis; pulmonary function; registry; respiratory function tests

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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