4.7 Article

Depression and Functional Status Are Strongly Associated With Dyspnea in Interstitial Lung Disease

期刊

CHEST
卷 139, 期 3, 页码 609-616

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1378/chest.10-0608

关键词

-

资金

  1. Association of Specialty Professors/CHEST Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Little is understood about the characteristics of dyspnea in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD), and its severity is likely influenced by multiple factors. Depression and functional status are known to influence dyspnea in patients with COPD. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship of dyspnea with clinical parameters, including depression and functional status, in patients with ILD. Methods: Dyspnea was measured with the Baseline Dyspnea Index and the University of California San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire. Clinical parameters were recorded. Regression analysis was performed to determine independent correlates of dyspnea. Results: Fifty-two subjects were enrolled. The two dyspnea scales were strongly correlated (r = -0.79; P < .00005). The mean levels of dyspnea were 6.5 and 41.0, representing a moderate degree of dyspnea. Clinically meaningful depressive symptoms were found in 23% of subjects. Independent correlates of dyspnea severity for each dyspnea scale were depression score (P = .002 and P < .0005), 4-m walk time (P = .001 and P = .06), FVC (P = .07 and P = .004), and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (P = .007). BMI had borderline significant association with the Baseline Dyspnea Index (P = .10). Conclusions: In patients with ILD, dyspnea is associated with depression score, functional status, and pulmonary function. These results suggest that attention to depression and functional status is important in these patients and that treatment directed at these comorbidities may improve dyspnea and quality of life. Trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00611182; URL: www. clinicaltrials.gov CHEST 2011;139(3):609-616

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

4.7
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