吸烟与家庭氧气疗法:瑞典多学科工作组的回顾与共识声明

IF 9 1区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM European Respiratory Review Pub Date : 2024-01-31 DOI:10.1183/16000617.0194-2023
Zainab Ahmadi, Joar Björk, Hans Gilljam, Madhuri Gogineni, Torbjörn Gustafsson, Michael Runold, Thomas Ringbæk, Josefin Wahlberg, Lotta Wendel, Magnus Ekström
{"title":"吸烟与家庭氧气疗法:瑞典多学科工作组的回顾与共识声明","authors":"Zainab Ahmadi, Joar Björk, Hans Gilljam, Madhuri Gogineni, Torbjörn Gustafsson, Michael Runold, Thomas Ringbæk, Josefin Wahlberg, Lotta Wendel, Magnus Ekström","doi":"10.1183/16000617.0194-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<sec><st>Background:</st>\n<p>Home oxygen therapy (HOT) improves survival in patients with hypoxaemic chronic respiratory disease. Most patients evaluated for HOT are former or active smokers. Oxygen accelerates combustion and smoking may increase the risk of burn injuries and fire hazards; therefore, it is considered a contraindication for HOT in many countries. However, there is variability in the practices and policies regarding this matter. This multidisciplinary Swedish taskforce aimed to review the potential benefits and risks of smoking in relation to HOT, including medical, practical, legal and ethical considerations.</p>\n</sec>\n<sec><st>Methods:</st>\n<p>The taskforce of the Swedish Respiratory Society comprises 15 members across respiratory medicine, nursing, medical law and ethics. HOT effectiveness and adverse risks related to smoking, as well as practical, legal and ethical considerations, were reviewed, resulting in five general questions and four PICO (population&ndash;intervention&ndash;comparator&ndash;outcome) questions. The strength of each recommendation was rated according to the GRADE (grading of recommendation assessment, development and evaluation) methodology.</p>\n</sec>\n<sec><st>Results:</st>\n<p>General questions about the practical, legal and ethical aspects of HOT were discussed and summarised in the document. The PICO questions resulted in recommendations about assessment, management and follow-up of smoking when considering HOT, if HOT should be offered to people that meet the eligibility criteria but who continue to smoke, if a specific length of time of smoking cessation should be considered before assessing eligibility for HOT, and identification of areas for further research.</p>\n</sec>\n<sec><st>Conclusions:</st>\n<p>Multiple factors need to be considered in the benefit/risk evaluation of HOT in active smokers. A systematic approach is suggested to guide healthcare professionals in evaluating HOT in relation to smoking.</p>\n</sec>","PeriodicalId":12166,"journal":{"name":"European Respiratory Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Smoking and home oxygen therapy: a review and consensus statement from a multidisciplinary Swedish taskforce\",\"authors\":\"Zainab Ahmadi, Joar Björk, Hans Gilljam, Madhuri Gogineni, Torbjörn Gustafsson, Michael Runold, Thomas Ringbæk, Josefin Wahlberg, Lotta Wendel, Magnus Ekström\",\"doi\":\"10.1183/16000617.0194-2023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<sec><st>Background:</st>\\n<p>Home oxygen therapy (HOT) improves survival in patients with hypoxaemic chronic respiratory disease. Most patients evaluated for HOT are former or active smokers. Oxygen accelerates combustion and smoking may increase the risk of burn injuries and fire hazards; therefore, it is considered a contraindication for HOT in many countries. However, there is variability in the practices and policies regarding this matter. This multidisciplinary Swedish taskforce aimed to review the potential benefits and risks of smoking in relation to HOT, including medical, practical, legal and ethical considerations.</p>\\n</sec>\\n<sec><st>Methods:</st>\\n<p>The taskforce of the Swedish Respiratory Society comprises 15 members across respiratory medicine, nursing, medical law and ethics. HOT effectiveness and adverse risks related to smoking, as well as practical, legal and ethical considerations, were reviewed, resulting in five general questions and four PICO (population&ndash;intervention&ndash;comparator&ndash;outcome) questions. The strength of each recommendation was rated according to the GRADE (grading of recommendation assessment, development and evaluation) methodology.</p>\\n</sec>\\n<sec><st>Results:</st>\\n<p>General questions about the practical, legal and ethical aspects of HOT were discussed and summarised in the document. The PICO questions resulted in recommendations about assessment, management and follow-up of smoking when considering HOT, if HOT should be offered to people that meet the eligibility criteria but who continue to smoke, if a specific length of time of smoking cessation should be considered before assessing eligibility for HOT, and identification of areas for further research.</p>\\n</sec>\\n<sec><st>Conclusions:</st>\\n<p>Multiple factors need to be considered in the benefit/risk evaluation of HOT in active smokers. A systematic approach is suggested to guide healthcare professionals in evaluating HOT in relation to smoking.</p>\\n</sec>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Respiratory Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Respiratory Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0194-2023\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Respiratory Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0194-2023","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:家庭氧疗(HOT)可提高低氧血症慢性呼吸系统疾病患者的生存率。大多数接受 HOT 评估的患者都曾经或正在吸烟。氧气会加速燃烧,而吸烟可能会增加烧伤和火灾风险;因此,在许多国家,吸烟被视为 HOT 的禁忌症。然而,有关这一问题的做法和政策存在差异。这个瑞典多学科工作组旨在审查与 HOT 相关的吸烟的潜在益处和风险,包括医学、实践、法律和伦理方面的考虑因素。对 HOT 的有效性、与吸烟有关的不良风险以及实际、法律和伦理方面的考虑因素进行了审查,最终提出了五个一般性问题和四个 PICO(人群–干预–比较者–结果)问题。根据 GRADE(建议评估、制定和评价分级)方法对每项建议的强度进行了评级。结果:文件中讨论并总结了有关 HOT 的实际、法律和伦理方面的一般性问题。PICO问题提出了以下建议:考虑HOT时的吸烟评估、管理和随访;是否应向符合资格标准但仍在吸烟的人提供HOT;在评估HOT资格之前是否应考虑特定的戒烟时间;以及确定进一步研究的领域。结论:在对活跃吸烟者进行HOT的获益/风险评估时,需要考虑多种因素。建议采用系统的方法指导医护人员评估与吸烟相关的HOT。
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
Smoking and home oxygen therapy: a review and consensus statement from a multidisciplinary Swedish taskforce
Background:

Home oxygen therapy (HOT) improves survival in patients with hypoxaemic chronic respiratory disease. Most patients evaluated for HOT are former or active smokers. Oxygen accelerates combustion and smoking may increase the risk of burn injuries and fire hazards; therefore, it is considered a contraindication for HOT in many countries. However, there is variability in the practices and policies regarding this matter. This multidisciplinary Swedish taskforce aimed to review the potential benefits and risks of smoking in relation to HOT, including medical, practical, legal and ethical considerations.

Methods:

The taskforce of the Swedish Respiratory Society comprises 15 members across respiratory medicine, nursing, medical law and ethics. HOT effectiveness and adverse risks related to smoking, as well as practical, legal and ethical considerations, were reviewed, resulting in five general questions and four PICO (population–intervention–comparator–outcome) questions. The strength of each recommendation was rated according to the GRADE (grading of recommendation assessment, development and evaluation) methodology.

Results:

General questions about the practical, legal and ethical aspects of HOT were discussed and summarised in the document. The PICO questions resulted in recommendations about assessment, management and follow-up of smoking when considering HOT, if HOT should be offered to people that meet the eligibility criteria but who continue to smoke, if a specific length of time of smoking cessation should be considered before assessing eligibility for HOT, and identification of areas for further research.

Conclusions:

Multiple factors need to be considered in the benefit/risk evaluation of HOT in active smokers. A systematic approach is suggested to guide healthcare professionals in evaluating HOT in relation to smoking.

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
European Respiratory Review
European Respiratory Review Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
1.30%
发文量
91
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Respiratory Review (ERR) is an open-access journal published by the European Respiratory Society (ERS), serving as a vital resource for respiratory professionals by delivering updates on medicine, science, and surgery in the field. ERR features state-of-the-art review articles, editorials, correspondence, and summaries of recent research findings and studies covering a wide range of topics including COPD, asthma, pulmonary hypertension, interstitial lung disease, lung cancer, tuberculosis, and pulmonary infections. Articles are published continuously and compiled into quarterly issues within a single annual volume.
期刊最新文献
Advance care planning in patients with respiratory failure. Association between second-hand smoke exposure and lung cancer risk in never-smokers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Harmonising cellular conversations: decoding the vital roles of extracellular vesicles in respiratory system intercellular communications. Particulate matter-induced epigenetic modifications and lung complications. Predicting paediatric asthma exacerbations with machine learning: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
×
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