Bentur Lea, Beck Raphael, Elias Nael, Barak Asher, Efrati Ori, Yahav Yaacov, Vilozni Daphna
Pediatric Pulmonary Unit, Meyer Children's Hospital, Rambam Medical Center, and the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
BMC Pediatr. 2005 Jun 28;5:19. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-5-19.
Determination of PC20-FEV1 during Methacholine bronchial provocation test (MCT) is considered to be impossible in preschool children, as it requires repetitive spirometry sets. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of determining PC20-FEV1 in preschool age children and compares the results to the wheeze detection (PCW) method.
55 preschool children (ages 2.8-6.4 years) with recurrent respiratory symptoms were recruited. Baseline spirometry and MCT were performed according to ATS/ERS guidelines and the following parameters were determined at baseline and after each inhalation: spirometry-indices, lung auscultation at tidal breathing, oxygen saturation, respiratory and heart rate. Comparison between PCW and PC20-FEV1 and clinical parameters at these end-points was done by paired Student's t-tests.
Thirty-six of 55 children (65.4%) successfully performed spirometry-sets up to the point of PCW. PC20-FEV1 occurred at a mean concentration of 1.70+/-2.01 mg/ml while PCW occurred at a mean concentration of 4.37+/-3.40 mg/ml (p < 0.05). At PCW, all spirometry-parameters were markedly reduced: FVC by 41.3+/-16.4% (mean +/-SD); FEV1 by 44.7+/-14.5%; PEFR by 40.5+/-14.5 and FEF25-75 by 54.7+/-14.4% (P < 0.01 for all parameters). This reduction was accompanied by de-saturation, hyperpnoea, tachycardia and a response to bronchodilators.
Determination of PC20-FEV1 by spirometry is feasible in many preschool children. PC20-FEV1 often appears at lower provocation dose than PCW. The lower dose may shorten the test and encourage participation. Significant decrease in spirometry indices at PCW suggests that PC20-FEV1 determination may be safer.
在学龄前儿童中,由于需要多次进行肺活量测定,因此认为在乙酰甲胆碱支气管激发试验(MCT)期间测定PC20-FEV1是不可能的。本研究的目的是评估在学龄前儿童中测定PC20-FEV1的可行性,并将结果与喘息检测(PCW)方法进行比较。
招募了55名有反复呼吸道症状的学龄前儿童(年龄2.8 - 6.4岁)。根据美国胸科学会/欧洲呼吸学会指南进行基线肺活量测定和MCT,并在基线和每次吸入后测定以下参数:肺活量测定指标、潮气呼吸时的肺部听诊、血氧饱和度、呼吸频率和心率。通过配对学生t检验对这些终点时的PCW和PC20-FEV1以及临床参数进行比较。
55名儿童中有36名(65.4%)成功完成了直至PCW点的肺活量测定。PC20-FEV1出现时的平均浓度为1.70±2.01mg/ml,而PCW出现时的平均浓度为4.37±3.40mg/ml(p < 0.05)。在PCW时,所有肺活量测定参数均显著降低:用力肺活量(FVC)降低41.3±16.4%(平均值±标准差);第一秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)降低44.7±14.5%;呼气峰值流速(PEFR)降低40.5±14.5%,25% - 75%用力呼气流量(FEF25 - 75)降低54.7±14.4%(所有参数p < 0.01)。这种降低伴随着血氧饱和度下降、呼吸急促、心动过速以及对支气管扩张剂的反应。
通过肺活量测定法测定PC20-FEV1在许多学龄前儿童中是可行的。PC20-FEV1通常出现在比PCW更低的激发剂量下。较低的剂量可能会缩短测试时间并鼓励儿童参与。PCW时肺活量测定指标的显著下降表明测定PC20-FEV1可能更安全。