Canadian respiratory journal最新文献

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains one of the most prevalent pathologies in the world and is among the leading causes of mortality and morbidity, partially due to underdiagnosis. The use of clinical questionnaires to identify high-risk individuals to take them to further diagnostic procedures has emerged as a strategy to address this problem.

Objective: To compare the performance of the COULD IT BE COPD, CDQ, COPD-PS, LFQ, and PUMA questionnaires for COPD diagnosis.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out on subjects who underwent spirometry in the third-level center. Data were collected between January 2015 and March 2020. Bivariate analysis was performed between the study variables and the presence of COPD. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC-ROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) for each questionnaire were calculated. The AUC-ROCs were compared with the DeLong test, considering a p value <0.05 statistically significant.

Results: 681 subjects met the inclusion criteria and were taken to the final analysis. The prevalence of COPD was 27.5% (187/681). The mean age of the subjects was 65.9 years (SD ± 11.79); 46.3% (315/681) were female, and 83.6% (569/681) reported respiratory symptoms. Statistically significant relationship was found for COPD diagnosis with male sex, older age, respiratory symptoms, and exposure to wood smoke (p value <0.05). The AUC-ROCs of the questionnaires were between 0.581 and 0.681. The COULD IT BE COPD questionnaire had a lower discriminatory capacity AUC-ROC of 0.581, concerning the other scores (DeLong test, p = 0.0002).

Conclusion: The CDQ, COPD-PS, LFQ, PUMA, and COULD IT BE COPD questionnaires have acceptable performance for the diagnosis of COPD together with low sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, its use must be complemented with other diagnostic tests or techniques such as pulmonary function tests.

Introduction: Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is common in patients with Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS). However, the prevalence of SDB varies widely between studies. Early identification of SDB and factors contributing to its incidence is essential, particularly when considering growth hormone (GH) therapy.

Objectives: The aims of the study were to describe the prevalence and phenotypes of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) in patients with Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) and to determine the effects of age, gender, symptoms, GH therapy and body mass index on SDB severity.

Methods: This study was a retrospective chart review of all patients with genetically confirmed Prader-Willi syndrome who underwent diagnostic overnight polysomnography (PSG) in the sleep laboratory at Sidra Medicine. Clinical and PSG data of enrolled patients were collected.

Results: We identified 20 patients (nine males, eleven females) with PWS who had overnight sleep polysomnography (PSG) at a median age (IQR) of 5.83 (2.7-12) years. The median apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was 8.55 (IQR 5.8-16.9) events/hour. The median REM-AHI was 27.8 (IQR 15-50.6) events/hour. The median obstructive apnea-hypopnea index (OAHI) was 7.29 (IQR 1.8-13.5) events/hour. The median central apnea-hypopnea index (CAHI) was 1.77 (IQR 0.6-4.1) events/hour. Nineteen patients (95%) demonstrated SDB by polysomnography (PSG) based on AHI ≥1.5 events/hour. Nine patients (45%) were diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Three patients (15%) were diagnosed with central sleep apnea (CSA). Seven patients (35%) were diagnosed with mixed sleep apnea. No correlations were observed between AHI and age, gender, BMI, symptoms, or GH therapy. However, REM-AHI was significantly correlated with BMI (P=0.031).

Conclusion: This study shows a high prevalence of SDB among our patients with PWS. Obstructive sleep apnea was the predominant phenotype. BMI was the only predictor for high REM-AHI. Further studies of large cohorts are warranted to define SDB in PWS and design the appropriate treatment.

Objective: To compare the effects of conservative oxygen therapy and conventional oxygen therapy on the mortality of critically ill patients in ICU.

Methods: Searching for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) on the effect of conservative oxygen therapy and conventional oxygen therapy on the mortality of critically ill patients in computer databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang, with postdate before August 2022. We have two researchers evaluating the quality of the literature included and extracting data as per the inclusion and exclusion criteria and then analyzed it with RevMan 5.4 statistical software. Primary outcome included short-term mortality (28-day mortality or ICU mortality); secondary outcome included 90-day mortality, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, incidence of new organ dysfunction in ICU, incidence of new infection in ICU, and incidence of ICUAW.

Results: A total of 5779 subjects were included in 10 articles, including 2886 in the conservative oxygen therapy group and 2893 in the conventional oxygen therapy group. The meta-analysis showed that conservative oxygen therapy had an advantage over conventional oxygen therapy in terms of short-term mortality (P=0.03). Subgroup analysis based on different conservative oxygen targets showed that this advantage was statistically significant when the target is set above 90% (RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.62∼0.94, P=0.01), while there was no significant difference between conservative oxygen therapy and conventional oxygen therapy when the target is set below 90% (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.79∼1.16, P=0.63). In addition, in terms of the incidence of new infections in the ICU (P=0.03) and the incidence of ICUAW (P=0.03), conservative oxygen therapy also had advantages over conventional oxygen therapy, and the difference was statistically significant. But in terms of 90-day mortality (P=0.61), ICU length of stay (P=0.96), hospital length of stay (P=0.47), and incidence of new organ dysfunction in ICU (P=0.61), there was no significant difference between conservative oxygen therapy and conventional oxygen therapy.

Conclusion: Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, conservative oxygen therapy can reduce the short-term mortality of severe patients, especially when the conservative oxygen therapy target is set above 90%. And it can also reduce the incidence of ICU new infections and ICUAW, while having no effect on 90-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay.