Lung function in young adults with congenital diaphragmatic hernia; a longitudinal evaluation

Background Survival rates of patients with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) have improved to up to 80%. Little is known about long‐term consequences of the disease and its treatment. We evaluated lung function and respiratory symptoms longitudinally in a previously studied cohort of CDH patient...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Pediatric pulmonology 2013-02, Vol.48 (2), p.130-137
Main Authors: Spoel, Marjolein, van der Cammen-van Zijp, Monique H.M., Hop, Wim C.J., Tibboel, Dick, de Jongste, Johan C., IJsselstijn, Hanneke
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Case-Control Studies
Cohort Studies
Disease Progression
Female
Hernia, Diaphragmatic - physiopathology
Hernias, Diaphragmatic, Congenital
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Lung - physiopathology
lung physiology
Male
mechanical ventilation
pediatric lung disease
Respiratory Function Tests
respiratory measurement
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Survival rates of patients with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) have improved to up to 80%. Little is known about long‐term consequences of the disease and its treatment. We evaluated lung function and respiratory symptoms longitudinally in a previously studied cohort of CDH patients and age‐matched non‐CDH patients who underwent similar neonatal intensive care treatment. Study Design We tested 27 young adults [mean (SD) age: 26.8 years (2.9)] with CDH and 30 non‐CDH patients. Dynamic and static lung volumes, midexpiratory flows, and diffusion capacity were expressed as mean (SD) standard deviation scores. Prevalence of respiratory symptoms was evaluated with the European Community Respiratory Health Survey. Results All data are expressed as mean (SD). FEF25–75 in CDH patients had slightly deteriorated since childhood (CDH: −0.7 (1.4) vs. −1.6 (1.5), P 
ISSN:8755-6863
1099-0496
DOI:10.1002/ppul.22557