识别慢性阻塞性肺病患者的异常用力呼吸困难：比较 mMRC 和 CAT 与 CPET。

IF 9.5 1区医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Chest Pub Date : 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.027

Magnus Ekström, Hayley Lewthwaite, Pei Zhi Li, Jean Bourbeau, Wan C Tan, Dennis Jensen

{"title":"识别慢性阻塞性肺病患者的异常用力呼吸困难：比较 mMRC 和 CAT 与 CPET。","authors":"Magnus Ekström, Hayley Lewthwaite, Pei Zhi Li, Jean Bourbeau, Wan C Tan, Dennis Jensen","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management is guided by the respiratory symptom burden, assessed using the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale and/or COPD Assessment Test (CAT).Research question: What is the ability of mMRC and CAT to detect abnormally high exertional breathlessness on incremental cardiopulmonary cycle exercise testing (CPET) in people with COPD?Study design and methods: Analysis of people aged ≥40 years with post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC<0.70 and ≥10 smoking pack-years from the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease study. Abnormal exertional breathlessness was defined as a breathlessness (Borg 0-10) intensity rating > upper limit of normal (ULN) at the symptom-limited peak of CPET using normative reference equations.Results: We included 318 people with COPD (40% women), age 66.5±9.3 years (mean±SD), FEV1 79.5±19.0%predicted; 26% had abnormally low exercise capacity (V'O2peak <lower limit of normal). Abnormally high exertional breathlessness was present in 24%, including 9% and 11% of people with mMRC=0 and CAT<10, respectively. A mMRC≥2 and CAT≥10 was most specific (95%) to detect abnormal exertional breathlessness, but had low sensitivity of only 12%. Accuracy for all scale cut-offs or combinations was <65%. Compared with 'true negatives', people with abnormal exertional breathlessness but low mMRC and/or CAT scores ('false negatives') had worse self-reported and physiological outcomes during CPET, were more likely to have physician-diagnosed COPD, but were not more likely to have any respiratory medication (37% versus 30%; mean difference 6.1%; 95% confidence interval -7.2 to 19.4; p=0.36).Interpretation: In COPD, mMRC and CAT have low concordance with CPET and fail to identify many people with abnormally high exertional breathlessness.","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying abnormal exertional breathlessness in COPD: comparing mMRC and CAT with CPET.\",\"authors\":\"Magnus Ekström, Hayley Lewthwaite, Pei Zhi Li, Jean Bourbeau, Wan C Tan, Dennis Jensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management is guided by the respiratory symptom burden, assessed using the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale and/or COPD Assessment Test (CAT).Research question: What is the ability of mMRC and CAT to detect abnormally high exertional breathlessness on incremental cardiopulmonary cycle exercise testing (CPET) in people with COPD?Study design and methods: Analysis of people aged ≥40 years with post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC<0.70 and ≥10 smoking pack-years from the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease study. Abnormal exertional breathlessness was defined as a breathlessness (Borg 0-10) intensity rating > upper limit of normal (ULN) at the symptom-limited peak of CPET using normative reference equations.Results: We included 318 people with COPD (40% women), age 66.5±9.3 years (mean±SD), FEV1 79.5±19.0%predicted; 26% had abnormally low exercise capacity (V'O2peak <lower limit of normal). Abnormally high exertional breathlessness was present in 24%, including 9% and 11% of people with mMRC=0 and CAT<10, respectively. A mMRC≥2 and CAT≥10 was most specific (95%) to detect abnormal exertional breathlessness, but had low sensitivity of only 12%. Accuracy for all scale cut-offs or combinations was <65%. Compared with 'true negatives', people with abnormal exertional breathlessness but low mMRC and/or CAT scores ('false negatives') had worse self-reported and physiological outcomes during CPET, were more likely to have physician-diagnosed COPD, but were not more likely to have any respiratory medication (37% versus 30%; mean difference 6.1%; 95% confidence interval -7.2 to 19.4; p=0.36).Interpretation: In COPD, mMRC and CAT have low concordance with CPET and fail to identify many people with abnormally high exertional breathlessness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chest\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chest\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.027\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.027","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

背景：慢性阻塞性肺疾病（COPD）的治疗以呼吸道症状负担为指导，使用改良医学研究委员会（mMRC）量表和/或慢性阻塞性肺疾病评估测试（CAT）进行评估：研究设计与方法：使用常模参考方程分析年龄≥40 岁、在 CPET 症状限制峰值时支气管扩张剂后 FEV1/FVC 正常值上限 (ULN) 的患者：我们纳入了 318 名慢性阻塞性肺病患者（40% 为女性），年龄为 66.5±9.3 岁（平均值±SD），预测 FEV1 为 79.5±19.0%；26% 的患者运动能力异常低（V'O2peak 解释：在慢性阻塞性肺病患者中，mMRC 和 CAT 与 CPET 的一致性较低，无法识别出许多存在异常高的劳累性呼吸困难的患者。

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

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Identifying abnormal exertional breathlessness in COPD: comparing mMRC and CAT with CPET.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management is guided by the respiratory symptom burden, assessed using the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale and/or COPD Assessment Test (CAT).

Research question: What is the ability of mMRC and CAT to detect abnormally high exertional breathlessness on incremental cardiopulmonary cycle exercise testing (CPET) in people with COPD?

Study design and methods: Analysis of people aged ≥40 years with post-bronchodilator FEV₁/FVC<0.70 and ≥10 smoking pack-years from the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease study. Abnormal exertional breathlessness was defined as a breathlessness (Borg 0-10) intensity rating > upper limit of normal (ULN) at the symptom-limited peak of CPET using normative reference equations.

Results: We included 318 people with COPD (40% women), age 66.5±9.3 years (mean±SD), FEV₁ 79.5±19.0%predicted; 26% had abnormally low exercise capacity (V'O_2peak

Interpretation: In COPD, mMRC and CAT have low concordance with CPET and fail to identify many people with abnormally high exertional breathlessness.

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

Chest 医学-呼吸系统

CiteScore

13.70

自引率

3.10%

发文量

3369

审稿时长

15 days

期刊介绍： At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.