目的 比较运动激发试验与药物激发试验用于气道高反应性检测的优劣,以得出更佳、更安全的用于气道高反应性的检测方法。方法 选择经哮喘正规治疗后拟停药的哮喘患儿47 例,对每名受试患儿先后进行运动和药物两种激发试验检测,并与金标准(PD20)相比较得出各自的敏感度,记录和观察两种激发试验过程中支气管痉挛症状发生情况。结果 以PD20 作为金标准,药物激发试验对中、重度气道高反应性患儿的检出敏感度(61%)明显高于运动激发试验(9%)(P<0.05),且药物激发试验与金标准的一致性较高(κ=0.614),而运动激发试验与金标准的一致性较差(κ=0.006);但药物激发试验中,哮喘患儿支气管痉挛症状发生率高,与咳嗽和胸闷发生率呈正相关(P<0.05)。结论 测定经哮喘正规治疗后拟停药的患儿气道高反应性时,药物激发试验较运动激发试验敏感度高,但副反应发生率亦较高。
Abstract
Objective To compare the advantages and disadvantages between exercise challenge test (ECT) and methacholine challenge test (MCT) in the measurement of airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), in order to identify a better and safer method to measure AHR. Methods Forty-seven children with controlled asthma after regular treatment were enrolled. ECT and MCT were performed for each child successively, and sensitivity was obtained through comparison with the golden standard (PD20). The occurrence of bronchospasm symptoms during the two tests was recorded. Results Taking PD20 as the gold standard, in children with moderate or severe AHR, the sensitivity of MCT (61%) for the measurement of AHR was significantly higher than that of ECT (9%) (P<0.05). The consistency between MCT results and PD20 was relatively high (κ=0.614), while the consistency between ECT results and PD20 was relatively low (κ=0.006). However, in the MCT, the incidence of bronchospasm symptoms was high and positively correlated with the incidence of cough and chest distress (P<0.05). Conclusions MCT has a higher sensitivity for the measurement of AHR, but has a higher incidence of adverse events, compared with ECT in children with controlled asthma after regular treatment.
关键词
气道高反应性 /
运动激发试验 /
药物激发试验 /
儿童
Key words
Airway hyperresponsiveness /
Exercise challenge test /
Methacholine challenge test /
Child
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] Leuppi JD. Bronchoprovocation tests in asthma:direct versus indirect challenges[J]. Curr Opin Pulm Med, 2014, 20(1):31-36.
[2] Global Initiative for Asthma. Pocket guide for asthma management and prevention (for adults and children older than 5 years)[DB/OL]. (2013-5-15) [2013-10-20]. http://www.ginasthma.org/local/uploads/files/GINA_Pocket2013_ May15_1.pdf.
[3] 张皓, 邬语芬, 黄剑锋, 等. 儿童肺功能检测及评估专家共识[J]. 临床儿科杂志, 2014, 32(2):104-114.
[4] 朱振华, 金美玲. 运动激发试验研究进展[J]. 中华哮喘杂志, 2012, 6(1):52-54.
[5] 郑劲平. 间接性支气管激发试验的研究进展[J]. 医师进修杂志, 2005, 28(8):7-10.
[6] Parsons JP, Hallstrand TS, Mastronarde JG, et al. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline:exerciseinduced bronchoconstriction[J]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2013, 187(9):1016-1027.
[7] Crapo RO, Casaburi R, Coates AL, et al. Guidelines for methacholine and exercise challenge testing-1999[J]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2000, 161(1):309-329.
[8] Guan W, Zheng J, Gao Y, et al. Leukotriene D4 and methacholine bronchial provocation tests for identifying leukotriene-responsiveness subtypes[J]. Allergy Clin Immunol, 2013, 131(2):332-338.
[9] 吴雪郡, 黄英, 王莹, 等. 619 例儿童哮喘肺功能FEV1 和 PEF 与小气道的关系[J]. 南方医科大学学报, 2011, 31(11):1900-1906.
[10] Muñoz-López F, Ríos-Alcolea M. The interest of FEF (25-75) in evaluating bronchial hyperresponsiveness with the methacholine test[J]. Allergol Immunopathol, 2012, 40(6):352-356.
[11] 熊梅, 倪陈, 潘家华, 等. 合肥市儿童哮喘的危险因素分析[J]. 中国当代儿科杂志, 2013, 15(5):364-367.
[12] Pasnick SD, Carlos WG 3rd, Arunachalam A, et al. Exerciseinduced bronchoconstriction[J]. Ann Am Thorac Soc, 2014, 11(10):1651-1652.
[13] Segel MJ, Rabinovich E, Schwarz Y, et al. Methacholine challenge testing:improved patient comfort with a 2-tiered protocol[J]. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol, 2013, 110(6):429-432.
[14] 朱艳芬, 宋泽庆. 哮喘小鼠气道重塑中α 平滑肌肌动蛋白的表达[J]. 中国免疫学杂志, 2011, 27(10):934-937.
PDF(1240 KB)
