Journals / Tüberküloz ve Toraks / 2004 / Cilt: 52 - Sayı: 4

The comparison of the result of exercise bronchoprovocation test and methacholine bronchoprovocation test in athletes

Sporcularda metakolin ve egzersiz bronkoprovokasyon testleri sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması

Pages
315–322
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings sug-gests that methacholine bronchoprouocation test is a more sensitive test for the diagnosis of BHR in athletes and sedantery subjects than exercise bronchoprouocation test.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The excess contraction respond of the bronchiols to the specific and non-specific agent is called bronchial hyperresponsiveness.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The subjects that their age, height, weight and environmental sta-. tus of the test room (temperature and humidity) were not statistically different, they gave statistically different respond to the methacholine bronchoprovocation test (p 0.05).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings sug-gests that methacholine bronchoprouocation test is a more sensitive test for the diagnosis of BHR in athletes and sedantery subjects than exercise bronchoprouocation test.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The excess contraction respond of the bronchiols to the specific and non-specific agent is called bronchial hyperresponsiveness. In our study we compared the result of exercise bronchoprovocation test and methacholine bronchoprovocation test in athletes (group I) and in sedentary subjects (group II). The subjects that their age, height, weight and environmental sta-. tus of the test room (temperature and humidity) were not statistically different, they gave statistically different respond to the methacholine bronchoprovocation test (p 0.05). In group I, there was a correlation in the result of exercise bronchoprovocation test and methacholine bronchoprovocation test (r= 0.60, p 0.05). In both two groups there was a statistically different respond in the result of exercise bronchoprovocation test and methacholine bronchoprovocation test. These findings sug-gests that methacholine bronchoprouocation test is a more sensitive test for the diagnosis of BHR in athletes and sedantery subjects than exercise bronchoprouocation test.

Özet

Bronşların spesifik ue nonspesifık çeşitli ajanlara karşı verdikleri abartılı kasılma cevabına, bronş aşırı cevaplılığı adı verilmektedir. Çalışmamızda, bronş aşırı cevaplılığını değerlendirmek için kullanılan egzersiz bronkoprovokasyon testi ve metakolin bronkoprovokasyon testini sporculara (grup I) ve sedanterlere (grup II) uygulayıp sonuçlarını karşılaştırdık. Ortam koşulları (sıcaklık ve nem), yaşları, boy ve kilo ölçümleri arasında istatistiksel olarak fark bulunmayan deneklerin metakolin bronkoprovokasyon testine verdikleri yanıtlar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulundu (p 0.05). Grup l'deki bireylerin metakolin bronkoprovokasyon testine verdikleri maksimum FEV1 azalma değeri ile egzersiz bronkoprovokasyon testine verdikleri yanıt arasında pozitif yönlü bir korelasyon görüldü (r= 0.60, p 0.05). Allerjik durumu belirlemek için kullandığımız parametreler (total IgE, eozinofil sayısı, atopik birey sayısı) yönünden iki grup arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p> 0.05). Her iki gruptaki bireylerin metakolin bronkoprovokasyon testine verdikleri maksimum FEV1 azalması yanıtı ile egzersiz bronkoprovokasyon testine verdikleri yanıt arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulundu (p< 0.05). Elde ettiğimiz verilerden bronş hiperreaktivitesini değerlendirmede; sporcularda ve sedanterlerde metakolin bronkoprovokasyon testinin, egzersiz bronkoprovokasyon testine göre daha duyarlı olduğu sonucuna varıldı.

🔖

Cite This Article

DAL, U., ERDAL, S., AKKURT, İ. (2022). The comparison of the result of exercise bronchoprovocation test and methacholine bronchoprovocation test in athletes. Tüberküloz ve Toraks, Cilt: 52 - Sayı: 4, 315–322. https://ajindex.com/articles/619233

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (22)

  1. Kalyoncu AF. Bronş Astması 2001
  2. Baskı. Ankara: At- las Kitapçılık, 2001: 243
  3. Mc Ardle WD. Exercise Physiology: Energy, and Human Performance. 4th ed. USA: Williams and Wilkins, 1996: 217-31
  4. Langdeau BJ, Turcotte H, Bowie MD, et al. Airway hper- responsiveness in elite athletes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 161: 1479-84
  5. Langdeau BJ, Boulet PL. Is asthma over-or under-diagno- sed in athletes? Respiratory Medicine 2003; 97: 109-14
  6. Sherwood L. Human Physiology. 2nd. USA: West Publis- hing Company, 1989: 422-7
  7. Cabral A, Conceicao GM, Gudes F, et al. Exercise-indu- ced bronchospasm in children effects of asthma severity. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999; 159: 1819-23
  8. Gosthall WR. Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. Drugs 2002; 62: 1725-39
  9. Anderson S, Holzer K. Exercise- induced asthma is it the right diagnosis in elite athletes? J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000; 106: 419-28
  10. Holzer K, Anderson S, Douglass J. Exercise in elite sum- mer athletes: challenges for diagnosis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002; 110:374-80
  11. American Thoracic Society. Guidelines for methacholine and exercise challenge testlng-1999. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 1161: 309-29
  12. Braun-Falco O, Plewig G, Wolff HH, Burgdorf WHC. Dermatitis in; Dermatology. 2th ed. New York: Springer Verlag, 1996:585-611
  13. Langdeau JB, Boulet PL. Prevelance and mechanisms of development of asthma and airway hyperresponsiveness in athletism. Sports Med 2001; 31: 601-16
  14. Rundell KW, Im J, Mayers LB, Wilber RL, et al. Self-reported symptoms and ElA in the elite athlete. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001; 33: 208-13
  15. Ross RG. The prevalence of reversible airway obstruction in professional football players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32: 1985-9
  16. Nystad W, Harris J, Borgen JS. Asthma and wheezing among Norwegian elite athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32:266-70
  17. Rundell KW, Jenkinson DM. Exercise-induced bronchospasm in the elite athlete. Sports Med 2002; 32: 583-600
  18. Millqvist E, Bengtsson U, Lowhagen O. Combining a beta2-agonist with a face mask to prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. Allergy 2000; 55: 672-5
  19. Scollo M, Zanconato S, Ongaro R, et al. Exhaled nitric oxide and exercise-induced bronchonstriction in asthmatic children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 161: 1047-50
  20. Kalyon TA. Spor Hekimliği. 3. baskı. Ankara: Gata Basımevi, 1995; 1:28-32
  21. Chupp GL. Pulmonary function testing. Clin Chest Med 2001; 22:599-859
  22. Wilber RL, Rund