为探讨以PD20-PEF替代PD20-FEV1作为气道反应性判定指标的可行性,对64例有呼吸系统症状者和 62例无症状者进行乙酰甲胆碱支气管激发试验，同步记录PEF和FEV1，计算PD20-PEF和PD20-FEV1。虽然PD20-PEF和PD 20-FEV1之间有较强的直线相关关系(P<0.001)，但两者之间有显著差异(P<0.005);若以PD20-FEV1作为金标准，在有症状组中以PD20-PEF 作为气道反应性判定指标的敏感性(72.7%)、特异性(73.8%)、阳性符合率(59.3%)、阴性符合率(83.8%)均不甚高;在无症状组中敏感性(66.7%)和阳性符合率(40.0%)仍低，而特异性(89.2%)和阳性符合率(96.2%)较高。认为PD20-PEF作为无症状群体的流行病学筛选指标以除外气道反应性正常者可能具有一定价值，但替代PD20-FEV1作为气道反应性指标用于临床工作则欠妥当。%To assess PD20-PEF as a surrogate measurement of PD20-FEV1 to determine the bronchial responsiveness，methacholine bronchial responsiveness tests were performed on 64 patients with respiratory symptoms and 62 volunteers without respiratory symptoms. PEF and FEV1 were recorded simultaneosly. Although PD20-PEF and PD20-FEV1 had a strong correlation (P<0.001)，the difference between them was significant( P<0.005). If PD20-FEV1 was used as the golden criteria，the sensitivity(72.7%)，specificity(73.8%)，positive predicative value(59.3%) and negative predicative value(83.8%) of PD20-PEF in the group of patients with respiratory symptoms were not satisfactory. In the group of volunteers without respiratory symptoms，the sensitivity (66. 7%) and positive predicative value (40.0%) were still low，but the specificity(89.2%) and negative predicative value (96.2%) were rather high. PD20-PEF may has some value in determining the subjects with normal bronchial responsiveness in epidemic screening surveys，but it is not suitable to replace PD20-FEV1 with PD20-PEF as the index of bronchial responsiveness in clinical work.
展开▼
