4.6 Article

Nature and severity of lung function abnormalities in extremely pre-term children at 11 years of age

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 37, 期 5, 页码 1199-1207

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00071110

关键词

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia; child; extreme prematurity; respiratory follow-up

资金

  1. UK Medical Research Council
  2. Smiths Medical plc (London, UK)
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. NHS
  5. MRC [G0401525] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Medical Research Council [G0401525] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Advances in neonatal care have resulted in increased survival of children born extremely pre-term (EP). Nevertheless the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia and long-term respiratory morbidity remains high. We investigated the nature of pathophysiological changes at 11 yrs of age to ascertain whether respiratory morbidity in EP children primarily reflects alterations in the lung periphery or more centralised airway function in this population. Spirometry, plethysmography, diffusing capacity, exhaled nitric oxide, multiple-breath washout, skin tests and methacholine challenge were used during laboratory-based assessments in a subgroup of the 1995 EPICure cohort and in controls. Results were obtained in 49 EP and 52 control children. Lung function abnormalities were found in 78% of EP children, with evidence of airway obstruction, ventilation inhomogeneity, gas trapping and airway hyperresponsiveness. Levels of atopy and exhaled nitric oxide were similar between the groups. Prior wheeze was associated with significant reductions in forced flows and volumes. By contrast, abnormalities of the lung periphery appear to be mediated primarily through EP birth per se. The prevalence of lung function abnormalities, which is largely obstructive in nature and likely to have long-term implications, remains high among 11-yr-old children born EP. Spirometry proved an effective means of detecting these persistent abnormalities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据