4.4 Article

Pulmonary function in adolescents with ataxia telangiectasia

期刊

PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 59-66

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ppul.20738

关键词

ataxia telangiectasia; lung volumes; spirometry; dysphagia

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR00052] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. Pulmonary complications are common in adolescents with ataxia telangiectasia (A-T), however objective measurements of lung function may be difficult to obtain because of underlying bulbar weakness, tremors, and difficulty coordinating voluntary respiratory maneuvers. To increase the reliability of pulmonary testing, minor adjustments were made to stabilize the head and to minimize leaks in the system. Fifteen A-T adolescents completed lung volume measurements by helium dilution. To assess for reproducibility of spirometry testing, 10 A-T adolescents performed spirometry on three separate occasions. Results. Total lung capacity (TLC) was normal or just mildly decreased in 12/15 adolescents tested. TLC correlated positively with functional residual capacity (FRC), a measurement independent of patient effort (R-2 = 0.71). The majority of individuals had residual volumes (RV) greater than 120% predicted (10/15) and slow vital capacities (VC) less than 70% predicted (9/15). By spirometry, force vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) values were reproducible in the 10 individuals who underwent testing on three separate occasions (R = 0.97 and 0.96 respectively). Seven of the 10 adolescents had FEV,/FVC ratios >90%. Conclusion. Lung volume measurements from A-T adolescents revealed near normal TLC values with increased RV and decreased VC values. These findings indicate a decreased ability to expire to residual volume rather then a restrictive defect. Spirometry was also found to be reproducible in A-T adolescents suggesting that spirometry testing may be useful for tracking changes in pulmonary function over time in this population.

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

4.4
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