Clinical Analysis Of Pulmonary Function Test,eosinophil Count And Skin Prick Test In Children With Asthma And Cough Variant Asthma

Objective: To explore the clinical significance of pulmonary functiontest,eosinophil count and skin prick test in children with asthma and coughvariant asthma (CVA).Methods: We randomly selected80patients who were diagnosed asthmaor CVA at outpatient department of HeBei children hospital from May toNovember in2010. They were between5and12years old. They had to beendivided into three groups. Group A for33patients with acute asthma, whoseaverage year was7.96±2.12, including21boys; group B for27patients withasthma remission phase, whose average year was7.97±1.91, including17boys; and group C for20patients with cough variant asthma, whose averageyear was8.03±2.18, including13boys. We also randomly selected30childrenfrom healthy children at children health department as group D, whoseaverage year was8.58±2.11, including16boys. There was no statisticalsignificance of age,sex,height,weight and so on compared with these groups.Test Contest1Pulmonary function test All children should be tested bythe Master Screen pulmonary function machine, produced in Jaeger companyin German. There were seven pulmonary function indexes, such as forced vitalcapacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), peakexpiratory flow (PEF), forced expiratory flow after25%(FEF25), forcedexpiratory low after50%(FEF50), forced expiratory flow after75%(FEF75),maximal midexpiratory flow (MMEF75/25) and so on.2Skin prick test We used skin prick test kit do the test, produced inZheJiang I wu biological technology Co. LTD, including23reagents (14inhalant allergens,8food allergens and histamine as positive control). And sodium chloride of0.9%was as negative control. This test was forbidden forgroup A because of asthma acute. Before do the test, firstly we should preparefor emergency drugs, told parents our objective,method and points forattention, secondly parents wrote informed consent form, and then we detailrecoded the children general conditions. During the test, we should closelyobserve over children condition, and deal with abnormity in time.3Blood routine examination We used blood collection method offingertip collect routine blood to count absolute value of eosinophil. The bloodcell count and analyzer machine was produced in Beckman Coulter of U.S.We thought that the absolute value of eosinophil above0.5×10^9as higherthan normal.Data Analysis The statistical analysis was carried out by One-WayANOVA(Explore as x±s),Crosstabs and Bivariate Correlations with SPSS16.0, and the difference is statistically significant(p<0.05).Results:1Comparison general lung function index among children in four groups1.1Comparison each group children of general lung function indexesThese pulmonary function indexes of every child from group A weremuch lower than group D (p<0.01);These pulmonary function indexes (such as FVC,FEV1,FEF25,FEF50,MMEF75/25) of every child from group B were lower than group D(p<0.05), meanwhile FVC,FEV1,FEF25were much lower than group D(p<0.01), and there was no significant difference of PEF,FEF75betweengroup B and D (p>0.05).These pulmonary function indexes (such as FVC,FEV1,FEF25,FEF75,MMEF75/25) of every child from group C were lower than group D(p<0.05), meanwhile FVC,FEF75,MMEF75/25were much lower than groupD (p<0.01), and there was no significant difference of PEF,FEF50betweengroup C and D (p>0.05).1.2Comparison general lung function indexes among children in groupA, B and C Each pulmonary function indexes of every child from group A weremuch lower than group B and C (p<0.01); But there was no significantdifference between group B and C (p>0.05).All the pulmonary function indexes from group A and B and C were lowerthan group D (p<0.05,except PEF,FEF50,FEF75of group B and C. Eachpulmonary function indexes from group A were much lower than group B andC (p<0.01), but there was no significant difference between group B and C.2Comparison among four group's children of eosinophil countAll children had been counted the eosinophil count, the high number was30(90.91%) in group A,14(51.85%) in group B,13(65%) in group C, but0ingroup D.2.1Absolute value of Eos count in group D was much lower than others(p<0.01).2.2Comparison among A,B,C groups：It was the highest in group A,(p<0.01),but there was no statistically significant between group B and groupC (p>0.05).3Skin prick testThere were77children had been done the test(except group A), thepositive rate was70.4%(19/27) of group B,55%(11/20) of group C, none ofgroup D (0), and the total positive rate was63.83%(30/47).3.1To explore group B and C, x2=1.18, p=0.28, there was no statisticallysignificant (p>0.05), the results of finding allergen in group B as well as groupC was consistency.3.2It was inhalant allergen that the most main one of patients in group Band C. Among them, dust mites and indoor dust both are the main inhalantallergens. But we didn't found any allergen in group D.4The results of skin prick test had positive correlation with theeosinophil count (p<0.05).Conclusions:1Pulmonary function test is important to assess the degree of airwayobstruction, diagnose and evaluate severity for asthma and CVA children. 2Absolute value of Eos count is a primary index of diagnosis childrenwith asthma and CVA.3The method of skin prick test has simple operation, and suffering little.It's a perfect cure to find allergen.4It was inhalant allergen that the most main one of children with asthmaand CVA in our area. Among them, dust mites and indoor dust both are themain inhalant allergen.Pulmonary function test is important to diagnose and assess for childrenwith asthma and CVA. Absolute value of eosinophil count is a primary indexof allergic airway inflammation, especially analysis the reason of refractorycough and wheezing with recurrent episodes. Skin prick test can explainchildren atopy and it's a perfect cure to find allergen. This and eosinophilcount both are helpful for children with asthma and CVA.