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":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>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?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>Analysis of people aged ≥40 years with post-bronchodilator FEV<sub>1</sub>/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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 318 people with COPD (40% women), age 66.5±9.3 years (mean±SD), FEV<sub>1</sub> 79.5±19.0%predicted; 26% had abnormally low exercise capacity (V'O<sub>2peak</sub> <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).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>In COPD, mMRC and CAT have low concordance with CPET and fail to identify many people with abnormally high exertional breathlessness.</p>","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":null,"pages":null},"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\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Research question: </strong>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?</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>Analysis of people aged ≥40 years with post-bronchodilator FEV<sub>1</sub>/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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 318 people with COPD (40% women), age 66.5±9.3 years (mean±SD), FEV<sub>1</sub> 79.5±19.0%predicted; 26% had abnormally low exercise capacity (V'O<sub>2peak</sub> <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).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>In COPD, mMRC and CAT have low concordance with CPET and fail to identify many people with abnormally high exertional breathlessness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chest\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
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'O2peak
Interpretation: In COPD, mMRC and CAT have low concordance with CPET and fail to identify many people with abnormally high exertional breathlessness.
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.