COPD 是一种可预防、可治疗, 以气流不完全可逆受限并呈进行性发展为特征的疾病, 与肺部对有害气体或有毒颗粒的异常炎症反应有关。在全球范围内COPD 是引起死亡和功能致残的主要疾病之一。COPD 在全球患病率和死亡率位居第四, 并呈不断上升的趋势[1] 。本病具有明显的肺外效应, 包括引起全身系统性炎症、代谢改变、神经激素激活,以及对肌肉骨骼、心血管系统等其他系统的影响等[2] 。既往认为COPD 仅引起红细胞增多, 但近期研究发现COPD 引起的系统性炎症可影响红细胞的生成, 贫血亦同样存在于部分COPD 患者。目前认为, COPD导致的贫血与其他许多慢性疾病如慢性心衰一样, 同属于一种慢性病性贫血( anemia of chronic disease, ACD) , 称为COPD 相关性贫血, 其患病率高于继发性红细胞增多症在COPD 的患病率[3-5] 。本文就COPD 相关性贫血的流行病学概况、病理生理机制、临床重要性及干预的最新研究进展如下综述。
Objective To evaluate the impacts of pulmonary rehabilitation at different levels of exercise intensity on health status of patients with moderate to severe COPD. Methods Thirty-two COPD patients treated with pulmonary rehabilitation by ergometry exercise were randomly assigned to exercise intensity level either by anaerobic threshold （AT group; n=15） or by maximum tolerate [high intensity group（HI group）; n=17]. Nine COPD patients without exercise training served as control. Bicycle exercise training was conducted in two separate days each week for 12 weeks. Spirometry，cardiopulmonary exercise testing，the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire （SGRQ） were accessed before and after the rehabilitation program. Results Exercise intensity （%Wmax） was significantly higher in HI group than AT group （69%±14% vs 52%±7%，Plt;0.01）. Significant improvement of SGRQ scores after rehabilitation were found both in AT group （－11.91±15.48 U） and HI group （－8.39±9.49 U）. However，no significant difference was found between the two groups in the degree of improvement （Z=－0.540，P=0.589）. Symptoms and impacts subscale scores of SGRQ were decreased significantly in HI group，but only symptoms scores decreased significantly in AT group. The control group did not show any significant improvement in SGRQ scores. No statistically significant correlation was found between improvement of peak oxygen consumption per predicted (VO2peak%pre) and SGRQ scores. Conclusion Both pulmonary rehabilitation strategies by anaerobic threshold and by maximum tolerate can improve health status of COPD patients significantly with no significant difference between each other.
Objective To study the sedative effects and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolamfor acute exacerbate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( AECOPD) underwentmechanical ventilation.Methods 68 AECOPD patients underwentmechanical ventilation were enrolled and randomly divided into adexmedetomidine group ( n =34) and a midazolam group ( n = 34) by acute physiology and chronic healthevaluation Ⅱ ( APACHEⅡ) score. The patients in the dexmedetomidine group were given a loading dose( 1 μg/kg) and then maintained with 0. 2-0. 8 mg·kg- 1 ·h- 1 . The patients in the midazolam group weregiven a loading dose ( 0. 05 mg/kg) and then maintained with 0. 06-0. 2 mg· kg- 1 · h- 1 . Sedation levelwas assessed by Ramsay score and maintained a Ramsay score of 3-4. The sedation onset time, disablesedatives wake time, duration of mechanical ventilation, extubation success rate, ICU length of stay, and 28days mortality after admission to the ICU were compared between two groups. And calmer respiratorydepression, circulatory and delirium adverse reactions incidence were also compared. Results Thedifferences in patients’age, gender, and APACHEⅡ score between two groups were not significant ( P gt;0. 05) . Compared with the midazolam group, the dexmedetomidine group had more rapid onset of sedation[ ( 49. 80 ±8. 20) s vs. ( 107. 55 ±19. 65) s, P lt;0. 01] , shorter wake-up time [ ( 18. 90 ±2. 30) min vs. ( 40. 82 ±19. 85) min, P lt;0. 01] , shorter duration of mechanical ventilation [ ( 4. 9 ±1. 6) d vs. ( 7. 8 ±2. 5) d,P lt;0. 01] , higher successful extubation rate ( 79. 41% vs. 58. 82% , P lt;0. 01) , and shorter ICUlength of stay[ ( 6. 5 ±2. 5) d vs. ( 9. 6 ±3. 4) d, P lt;0. 05] . Dexmedetomidine had lower respiratory depression rate, littleeffects on hemodynamics, lower occurrence and short duration of delirium. Conclusion It is highlyrecommended that dexmedetomidine be used for sedation in AECOPD patients with mechanical ventilation.