All-cause and cause-specific mortality from restrictive and obstructive spirometric patterns in Chinese adults with and without dyspnea: Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Authors

  • Jing Pan
  • Chao Qiang Jiang
  • Wei Sen Zhang
  • Xiao-Feng Zhu
  • Ya Li Jin
  • Tai Hing Lam

Colleges, School and Institutes

External organisations

  • Guangzhou No. 12 Hospital
  • University of Hong Kong

Abstract

Objective To study whether abnormal spirometric patterns were associated with differential mortality in Chinese adults with and without dyspnea. Methods Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study (GBCS) participants were classified by spirometric patterns and presence of dyspnea into 6 groups: normal spirometry (NS), restriction on spirometry (ROS) and airflow obstruction (AO), each with and without dyspnea. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were calculated for mortality using Cox models.Results Among 16777 subjects, 1595 (9.5%) had ROS, 1036 (6.2%) had AO and1009 (6.0%) had dyspnea. A total of 1933 deaths (11.9%) occurred during 11-year follow-up. Using NS without dyspnea as reference, NS with dyspnea was significantly associated with increased cardiovascular mortality risk (aHRs 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-2.19); ROS with and without dyspnea were associated with increased risks of all-cause (aHRs 1.46 (95% CI 1.28-1.66) and 1.81(95% CI 1.33-2.47)) and cardiovascular mortality (aHRs 1.89 (95% CI 1.55-2.31) and 1.85 (95% CI 1.12-3.03)), but not of lung cancer mortality (aHRs 1.33 (95% CI 0.91-1.94) and 1.35 (95% CI 0.49-3.70)); AO with and without dyspnea were associated with increased risks of all-cause (aHRs 1.59 (95% CI 1.36-1.86) and 2.36 (95% CI 1.77-3.15)), cardiovascular (aHRs 1.43 (95% CI 1.08-1.90) and 1.61(95% CI 0.91-2.82)) and lung cancer mortality (aHRs 1.91 (95% CI 1.29-2.84)and 3.01(95% CI 1.46-6.23)). These associations did not vary by sex or smoking status (all P-values for interaction >0.05).Conclusion: Both ROS and AO, with and without dyspnea, were associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality. The increased risk of all-cause was greater and that of cardiovascular mortality was lower for AO than ROS. AO showed significantly increased risk of lung cancer but ROS did not.

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)66-80
Number of pages15
JournalRespiratory Medicine
Volume151
Early online date6 Apr 2019
Publication statusPublished - May 2019

Keywords

  • Airflow obstruction, Dyspnea, Mortality, Restriction on spirometry

ASJC Scopus subject areas