Viktor Elmberg, Gufran Ali, David Gustafsson, Dennis Jensen, Magnus Ekström
{"title":"评估呼吸困难程度时应考虑用力程度:一项临床研究。","authors":"Viktor Elmberg, Gufran Ali, David Gustafsson, Dennis Jensen, Magnus Ekström","doi":"10.1016/j.resp.2025.104398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>Exertional breathlessness is a dominating symptom in cardiorespiratory disease, limiting exercise capacity. Multidimensional measurement has been proposed to capture breathlessness, but it is unknown whether it is useful to differentiate people with abnormal vs normal exertional breathlessness intensity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of outpatients aged ≥ 18 years performing a symptom-limited cycle incremental exercise test (IET). Breathlessness sensations at end of IET were identified using the multidimensional dyspnea profile (MDP) 30-min post-exercise and compared between people with abnormally high breathlessness (Borg 0-10 rating > upper limit of normal [ULN]) and people within normal ranges (≤ ULN) in relation to the percentage of predicted peak power output defined by normative reference equations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 92 participants, 20 (22 %) had abnormally high breathlessness. Compared with those with normal breathlessness (n = 72 [78 %]), the abnormal group reported higher symptom intensity at peak exercise (7.9 ± 1.7 vs 6.3 ± 1.4 Borg units; p < 0.001) and had lower peak power output 129 ± 52 W vs 167 ± 55 W; p < 0.001). Differences between those with normal, and abnormal exertional breathlessness regarding MDP ratings were not statistically significant (all p > 0.05): overall unpleasantness, 4.1 ± 2.3 vs 4.7 ± 1.6; immediate perception, 10.9 ± 2.8 vs 11.5 ± 1.8; and emotional response, 4.1 ± 7.6 vs 3.2 ± 7.5. MDP ratings had no relation to peak power output.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Breathlessness dimensions are similar at the peak of a standardized IET and cannot differentiate between people with normal and abnormally high exertional breathlessness.</p>","PeriodicalId":20961,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology","volume":" ","pages":"104398"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Breathlessness dimensions should be evaluated in relation to the level of exertion: A clinical study.\",\"authors\":\"Viktor Elmberg, Gufran Ali, David Gustafsson, Dennis Jensen, Magnus Ekström\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resp.2025.104398\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/aim: </strong>Exertional breathlessness is a dominating symptom in cardiorespiratory disease, limiting exercise capacity. Multidimensional measurement has been proposed to capture breathlessness, but it is unknown whether it is useful to differentiate people with abnormal vs normal exertional breathlessness intensity.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of outpatients aged ≥ 18 years performing a symptom-limited cycle incremental exercise test (IET). Breathlessness sensations at end of IET were identified using the multidimensional dyspnea profile (MDP) 30-min post-exercise and compared between people with abnormally high breathlessness (Borg 0-10 rating > upper limit of normal [ULN]) and people within normal ranges (≤ ULN) in relation to the percentage of predicted peak power output defined by normative reference equations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 92 participants, 20 (22 %) had abnormally high breathlessness. Compared with those with normal breathlessness (n = 72 [78 %]), the abnormal group reported higher symptom intensity at peak exercise (7.9 ± 1.7 vs 6.3 ± 1.4 Borg units; p < 0.001) and had lower peak power output 129 ± 52 W vs 167 ± 55 W; p < 0.001). Differences between those with normal, and abnormal exertional breathlessness regarding MDP ratings were not statistically significant (all p > 0.05): overall unpleasantness, 4.1 ± 2.3 vs 4.7 ± 1.6; immediate perception, 10.9 ± 2.8 vs 11.5 ± 1.8; and emotional response, 4.1 ± 7.6 vs 3.2 ± 7.5. MDP ratings had no relation to peak power output.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Breathlessness dimensions are similar at the peak of a standardized IET and cannot differentiate between people with normal and abnormally high exertional breathlessness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"104398\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resp.2025.104398\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resp.2025.104398","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Breathlessness dimensions should be evaluated in relation to the level of exertion: A clinical study.
Background/aim: Exertional breathlessness is a dominating symptom in cardiorespiratory disease, limiting exercise capacity. Multidimensional measurement has been proposed to capture breathlessness, but it is unknown whether it is useful to differentiate people with abnormal vs normal exertional breathlessness intensity.
Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of outpatients aged ≥ 18 years performing a symptom-limited cycle incremental exercise test (IET). Breathlessness sensations at end of IET were identified using the multidimensional dyspnea profile (MDP) 30-min post-exercise and compared between people with abnormally high breathlessness (Borg 0-10 rating > upper limit of normal [ULN]) and people within normal ranges (≤ ULN) in relation to the percentage of predicted peak power output defined by normative reference equations.
Results: Of 92 participants, 20 (22 %) had abnormally high breathlessness. Compared with those with normal breathlessness (n = 72 [78 %]), the abnormal group reported higher symptom intensity at peak exercise (7.9 ± 1.7 vs 6.3 ± 1.4 Borg units; p < 0.001) and had lower peak power output 129 ± 52 W vs 167 ± 55 W; p < 0.001). Differences between those with normal, and abnormal exertional breathlessness regarding MDP ratings were not statistically significant (all p > 0.05): overall unpleasantness, 4.1 ± 2.3 vs 4.7 ± 1.6; immediate perception, 10.9 ± 2.8 vs 11.5 ± 1.8; and emotional response, 4.1 ± 7.6 vs 3.2 ± 7.5. MDP ratings had no relation to peak power output.
Conclusion: Breathlessness dimensions are similar at the peak of a standardized IET and cannot differentiate between people with normal and abnormally high exertional breathlessness.
期刊介绍:
Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology (RESPNB) publishes original articles and invited reviews concerning physiology and pathophysiology of respiration in its broadest sense.
Although a special focus is on topics in neurobiology, high quality papers in respiratory molecular and cellular biology are also welcome, as are high-quality papers in traditional areas, such as:
-Mechanics of breathing-
Gas exchange and acid-base balance-
Respiration at rest and exercise-
Respiration in unusual conditions, like high or low pressure or changes of temperature, low ambient oxygen-
Embryonic and adult respiration-
Comparative respiratory physiology.
Papers on clinical aspects, original methods, as well as theoretical papers are also considered as long as they foster the understanding of respiratory physiology and pathophysiology.