Chiry Samah, Cartier André, Malo Jean-Luc, Tarlo Susan M, Lemière Catherine
Department of Chest Medicine, Sacré-Coeur Hospital, 5400 Gouin West, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Chest. 2007 Aug;132(2):483-8. doi: 10.1378/chest.07-0460. Epub 2007 May 15.
Peak expiratory flow (PEF) monitoring is frequently used to diagnose occupational asthma (OA). The variability of PEF between periods at work and away from work has not been described in workers with work-exacerbated asthma (WEA). We sought to assess and compare the diurnal variability of PEF during periods at and away from work between subjects with OA and WEA.
Workers referred for work-related asthma underwent PEF monitoring for 2 weeks at and away from work. The diagnostic of OA or WEA was subsequently made according to the respective positivity or negativity of the specific inhalation challenges. PEF mean diurnal variability was calculated during periods at and away from work. PEF graphs were also interpreted using direct visual analysis by five observers and using a computer program (Oasys-2, Expert System ) [available at: http://www.occupationalasthma.com].
Thirty-four subjects were investigated (WEA, n = 15; OA, n = 19). There was a greater variability of PEF at work than away from work in both OA (19.8 +/- 8.7% vs 10.7 +/- 6.3%, p < 0.001) and WEA (14.2 +/- 4.8% vs 10.6 +/- 5.6%, p = 0.02). However, the magnitude of the variability was higher in OA than in WEA (p = 0.02). The visual interpretation of PEF or the Oasys-2 program failed to distinguish WEA from OA.
Although workers with OA showed a higher PEF variability than workers with WEA when at work, clinicians were unable to reliably differentiate OA from WEA using the visual interpretation of PEF graphs or the computerized analysis.
呼气峰值流速(PEF)监测常用于诊断职业性哮喘(OA)。工作加重型哮喘(WEA)患者在工作期间和非工作期间的PEF变异性尚未见描述。我们旨在评估和比较OA和WEA患者在工作期间和非工作期间PEF的日变异性。
因工作相关哮喘就诊的工人在工作期间和非工作期间接受了2周的PEF监测。随后根据特异性吸入激发试验的阳性或阴性结果分别诊断OA或WEA。计算工作期间和非工作期间的PEF平均日变异性。还由五名观察者通过直接视觉分析并使用计算机程序(Oasys-2,专家系统)[可从http://www.occupationalasthma.com获取]对PEF图表进行解读。
共调查了34名受试者(WEA,n = 15;OA,n = 19)。OA患者(19.8±8.7%对10.7±6.3%,p < 0.001)和WEA患者(14.2±4.8%对10.6±5.6%,p = 0.02)工作期间的PEF变异性均高于非工作期间。然而,OA患者的变异性幅度高于WEA患者(p = 0.02)。PEF的视觉解读或Oasys-2程序无法区分WEA和OA。
尽管OA患者在工作时的PEF变异性高于WEA患者,但临床医生无法通过PEF图表的视觉解读或计算机分析可靠地区分OA和WEA。