老年病人按临床安乐死进行哮喘病预报

H. Frohnhofen
{"title":"老年病人按临床安乐死进行哮喘病预报","authors":"H. Frohnhofen","doi":"10.1159/000495532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The diagnosis of asthma is not always straightforward and can be even more challenging in older adults. Asthma is ideally confirmed by demonstration of variable expiratory airflow limitation. However, many patients with asthma do not demonstrate airflow obstruction nor show bronchodilator reversibility. We aimed to investigate predictors for a positive bronchial challenge test with methacholine in older adults being evaluated for asthma. Methods: This is a diagnostic accuracy study with a cross-sectional design. Participants ≥60 years with suspected asthma and a negative postbronchodilator response on spirometry were included. All participants underwent a methacholine challenge test (MCT). We assessed the value of standard asthma screening questions and additional clinical questions to predict the MCT results. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to assess the variables independently impacting the odds of a positive MCT result. Results: Our study included 71 participants. The majority were female (n = 52, 73.2%) and the average age was 67.0 years. Those with a positive MCT (n = 55, 77.5%) were more likely to have wheezing or coughing due to allergens (n = 51, 92.7% vs. n = 12, 75.0%; P = 0.004) and difficulty walking several blocks (n = 14, 25.5% vs. n = 1, 6.3%, P = 0.009). After adjustment, having wheezing or coughing due to allergens (OR = 4.2, 95% CI 1.7-7.8, P = 0.012) remained the only significant independent predictor of a positive MCT. Conclusions: In older adults with suspected asthma, questioning about wheezing or coughing due to allergens provides a modest independent value to predict a MCT result in those who previously had a negative postbronchodilator response on spirometry.","PeriodicalId":306175,"journal":{"name":"Karger Kompass Pneumologie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Asthmavorhersage bei älteren Patienten auf Basis klinischer Anamnese\",\"authors\":\"H. Frohnhofen\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000495532\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The diagnosis of asthma is not always straightforward and can be even more challenging in older adults. Asthma is ideally confirmed by demonstration of variable expiratory airflow limitation. However, many patients with asthma do not demonstrate airflow obstruction nor show bronchodilator reversibility. We aimed to investigate predictors for a positive bronchial challenge test with methacholine in older adults being evaluated for asthma. Methods: This is a diagnostic accuracy study with a cross-sectional design. Participants ≥60 years with suspected asthma and a negative postbronchodilator response on spirometry were included. All participants underwent a methacholine challenge test (MCT). We assessed the value of standard asthma screening questions and additional clinical questions to predict the MCT results. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to assess the variables independently impacting the odds of a positive MCT result. Results: Our study included 71 participants. The majority were female (n = 52, 73.2%) and the average age was 67.0 years. Those with a positive MCT (n = 55, 77.5%) were more likely to have wheezing or coughing due to allergens (n = 51, 92.7% vs. n = 12, 75.0%; P = 0.004) and difficulty walking several blocks (n = 14, 25.5% vs. n = 1, 6.3%, P = 0.009). After adjustment, having wheezing or coughing due to allergens (OR = 4.2, 95% CI 1.7-7.8, P = 0.012) remained the only significant independent predictor of a positive MCT. Conclusions: In older adults with suspected asthma, questioning about wheezing or coughing due to allergens provides a modest independent value to predict a MCT result in those who previously had a negative postbronchodilator response on spirometry.\",\"PeriodicalId\":306175,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Karger Kompass Pneumologie\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Karger Kompass Pneumologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000495532\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Karger Kompass Pneumologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000495532","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:哮喘的诊断并不总是直截了当的,在老年人中可能更具挑战性。理想情况下,哮喘可以通过呼气气流受限的变化来确诊。然而,许多哮喘患者并未表现出气流阻塞或支气管扩张剂可逆性。我们的目的是研究评估哮喘的老年人用甲胆碱支气管激发试验阳性的预测因素。方法:采用横断面设计进行诊断准确性研究。受试者年龄≥60岁,疑似哮喘,肺活量测定支气管扩张剂后反应阴性。所有参与者都进行了甲胆碱激发试验(MCT)。我们评估了标准哮喘筛查问题和附加临床问题预测MCT结果的价值。建立了一个多变量逻辑回归模型来评估独立影响MCT阳性结果几率的变量。结果:本研究纳入71名受试者。以女性居多(n = 52,73.2%),平均年龄67.0岁。MCT阳性的患者(n = 55,77.5%)更容易因过敏原引起喘息或咳嗽(n = 51,92.7% vs. n = 12,75.0%;P = 0.004)和步行几个街区的困难(n = 14,25.5% vs. n = 1,6.3%,P = 0.009)。调整后,因过敏原引起的喘息或咳嗽(or = 4.2,95% CI 1.7-7.8, P = 0.012)仍然是MCT阳性的唯一显著独立预测因子。结论:在疑似哮喘的老年人中,询问因过敏原引起的喘息或咳嗽,对于预测先前在肺量测定中支气管扩张剂后反应为阴性的MCT结果提供了适度的独立价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Asthmavorhersage bei älteren Patienten auf Basis klinischer Anamnese
Background: The diagnosis of asthma is not always straightforward and can be even more challenging in older adults. Asthma is ideally confirmed by demonstration of variable expiratory airflow limitation. However, many patients with asthma do not demonstrate airflow obstruction nor show bronchodilator reversibility. We aimed to investigate predictors for a positive bronchial challenge test with methacholine in older adults being evaluated for asthma. Methods: This is a diagnostic accuracy study with a cross-sectional design. Participants ≥60 years with suspected asthma and a negative postbronchodilator response on spirometry were included. All participants underwent a methacholine challenge test (MCT). We assessed the value of standard asthma screening questions and additional clinical questions to predict the MCT results. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to assess the variables independently impacting the odds of a positive MCT result. Results: Our study included 71 participants. The majority were female (n = 52, 73.2%) and the average age was 67.0 years. Those with a positive MCT (n = 55, 77.5%) were more likely to have wheezing or coughing due to allergens (n = 51, 92.7% vs. n = 12, 75.0%; P = 0.004) and difficulty walking several blocks (n = 14, 25.5% vs. n = 1, 6.3%, P = 0.009). After adjustment, having wheezing or coughing due to allergens (OR = 4.2, 95% CI 1.7-7.8, P = 0.012) remained the only significant independent predictor of a positive MCT. Conclusions: In older adults with suspected asthma, questioning about wheezing or coughing due to allergens provides a modest independent value to predict a MCT result in those who previously had a negative postbronchodilator response on spirometry.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Zentrale Schlafapnoe bei Patienten mit Herzinsuffizienz: Physiologische Auswirkungen der periodischen Beatmung Kaleidoskop Malignes Mesotheliom: Die diagnostische Aussagekraft einer Computertomographie kritisch hinterfragen Pneumocampus PharmaNews
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1